tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post694745056194803574..comments2024-03-17T11:05:22.464+00:00Comments on The Life And Opinions of Andrew Rilstone: Sherlock, reduxUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger20125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-26880735385269370462017-01-25T12:18:00.366+00:002017-01-25T12:18:00.366+00:00It's a great scene. Like you, I was fixated by...It's a great scene. Like you, I was fixated by Tim rolling his eyes in the background.Aonghus Fallonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09434527113873901741noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-86916371492186490152017-01-25T12:07:15.257+00:002017-01-25T12:07:15.257+00:00I'd forgotten that scene. Thanks for the remin...I'd forgotten that scene. Thanks for the reminder -- <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Z8pgV74_Hw" rel="nofollow">here it is</a>. Tim's silent responses in the background are priceless.<br /><br />Very true on casting Holmes and Watson. It is essentially easy to act weird, which is what Sherlock needs to do. But to act normal: that is an art, and very very few people can do it well.Mike Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06039663158335543317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-81810646420690633742017-01-25T11:51:04.244+00:002017-01-25T11:51:04.244+00:00I kept thinking of that scene in the office - you ...I kept thinking of that scene in the office - you know the one about Chuck Norris? <br /><br />Re 'Sherlock', I remember somebody - a director - saying that casting Watson is always a lot trickier than casting Holmes, so the series was lucky that Martin Freeman came along when he did. He was a perfect fit as Bilbo, although - as you said in your blog - it would have been nice to see something more true to the spirit of the original book, even if this meant it being inconsistent with the rest of the franchise.Aonghus Fallonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09434527113873901741noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-31076387851538993002017-01-25T11:12:15.482+00:002017-01-25T11:12:15.482+00:00Haha, OK, I see what I did there (and what you did...Haha, OK, I see what I did there (and what <i>you</i> did)!<br /><br />Sorry, my dumb typo. For the avoidance of doubt, I did of course mean to say Martin Freeman.Mike Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06039663158335543317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-88027644418511292852017-01-25T10:57:25.018+00:002017-01-25T10:57:25.018+00:00I thought Freeman was excellent - and as you say, ...I thought Freeman was excellent - and as you say, he usually is - but I don't remember Martin Smith, who I'd know - and then only by reputation - as a musician. I'm guessing he was one of the dwarves? In that respect, I thought Ken Stott turned in a very decent performance.Aonghus Fallonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09434527113873901741noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-58748470092061714012017-01-25T10:47:02.184+00:002017-01-25T10:47:02.184+00:00Well, Aonghus, that is pretty surprising to me, gi...Well, Aonghus, that is pretty surprising to me, given that his performance was by some distance the best thing about those films. Perhaps one could argue that the very fact you don't remember it <i>as</i> a performance shows how believable it was. More of my thoughts on Freeman as Bilbo in the first film <a href="https://reprog.wordpress.com/2012/12/16/some-thoughts-on-the-hobbit/" rel="nofollow">here</a>.<br />Mike Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06039663158335543317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-61842921864719495872017-01-25T10:38:14.529+00:002017-01-25T10:38:14.529+00:00'And finally, finally: has Martin Smith ever b...'And finally, finally: has Martin Smith ever been anything that he didn't make twice as good by his presence? If you doubt that contention, just image the Hobbit movies with someone else -- Elijah Wood, say -- in the title role.'<br /><br />Mike, I actually don't remember Martin Smith's performance in 'The Hobbit'. Surprising, if it's as good as you say! :)Aonghus Fallonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09434527113873901741noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-65271757131289436052017-01-24T09:24:51.390+00:002017-01-24T09:24:51.390+00:00It's really interesting what you say about Gat...It's really interesting what you say about Gatiss and Moffat, Gavin. I've only ever watched 'Doctor Who' sporadically (I never saw any of the episodes in which Matt Smith featured, for example) and only realised that I've been mixing up the two writers, maybe because - as you point out, they have certain things in common (emotional logic rather than plot logic being a key example) - and I particularly remember 'The Empty Child' because I actually thought it was a stand-out episode and felt this was partially due to the fact that Gatiss hadn't written it. I'm not necessarily knocking Gatiss: I think being the primary author in such a series is invariably going to expose your tropes as an author. It's interesting how subsequently Moffat has developed his own line of tropes and how I would now find it hard to distinguish one author from the other.<br /><br />I saw the first series of 'Sherlock' and enjoyed it. If you were familiar with the stories, recognising what the author had done with such well-worn material was a lot of fun. I then saw the Xmas episode, which I thought was terrible - but appreciate this might be a matter of context: ie, that it probably plays around with themes explored in episodes I missed. Aonghus Fallonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09434527113873901741noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-5734566349451778232017-01-23T18:16:16.756+00:002017-01-23T18:16:16.756+00:00For me this piece brought on a strange combination...For me this piece brought on a strange combination of absolute agreement and… you know, the other one. It was the Victorian special I found to be the shark-jumping moment, and this latest series just part of a downward spiral for something already pushed into free fall.<br /> <br />As I believe your good self has said before, Moffat and Gatiss’ scripts rely more on a kind of dream logic and symbolic association than anything an old square like me would call plot development. And that was always going to make for a poorer fit for Holmes than for Who. So quite an effective ending for <i>‘Who’,</i> the monster turns out to be a lost lonely child, becomes absolutely risible when transplanted into <i>‘Sherlock’.</i><br /> <br /><i>” Part of the point of the stories is that his deductions are plausible; anyone could do it if they kept their wits about them.”</i><br /> <br />Quite so. Which makes the scene where he solves the Song of Sister with lots of fast-forward writing on the screen so self-parodic. Its deductive reasoning reduced to a spectator sport. There might as well be a scene where we’re supposed to be impressed by Sherlock speaking Swahili, without any real way of knowing whether he is speaking Swahili or not. Which seems kind of central. When we’re told repeatedly that Sherlock is so, so clever without any effective demonstration of this, we’re effectively being told that Moffat and Gatiss are so, so clever.<br /> <br />Writing which impresses you with its own cleverness is, admittedly, not much of a thing for me. I don’t see much point in script-as-puzzle. I mean, you could just have a puzzle, couldn’t you? But writing which seeks to impress you with its cleverness while not actually making much sense seems to me the worst of both worlds. So we’re told Bad Sister is a mastermind, yet she comes up with an absurdly convoluted plot which defies all logic. Why go to all that trouble of donning disguises to push Sherlock into another (entirely unrelated) case and flirt with Watson on the bus, what did it have to do with anything? And if she wants to lure him to Lecter Island why try to kill him off before he’s even left London? And why write in that pointless scene if you don’t even have a convincing escape plan for your characters?<br /> <br />I get, before anyone comes in and says so, that Bad Sister is supposed to be The Bad Side of Sherlock, who treats us mortals as disposable playthings and cares only for solving mysteries not justice or public safety, with whom he first contains and then becomes reconciled to the point they can play a duet together. But it could still make sense at a surface level. Or, even if it couldn’t, it could stop pretending quite so insistently that it does and it’s our job to keep up.Gavin Burrowshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16347163260510316959noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-27230636077931711282017-01-23T14:39:22.589+00:002017-01-23T14:39:22.589+00:00I indeed hear about Bell, Swamp - but that's i...I indeed hear about Bell, Swamp - but that's interesting re how Bell had a certain amount of faith in Doyle's concept. I'm guessing that Doyle's own experiences as a doctor helped, too.Aonghus Fallonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09434527113873901741noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-7210875803656889962017-01-23T14:17:50.283+00:002017-01-23T14:17:50.283+00:00Aonghus, possibly you already knew this but Doyle ...Aonghus, possibly you already knew this but Doyle literally based Holmes' deductive abilities on one of his own medical professors, Dr. Joseph Bell. Doyle definitely believed that Holmes' techniques were practical in real life, and that what he had written was only a slight exaggeration on Bell's own abilities.Swamp Adderhttp://swamp-adder.tumblr.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-44352253788720200262017-01-23T13:16:05.980+00:002017-01-23T13:16:05.980+00:00Fair enough!Fair enough!Aonghus Fallonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09434527113873901741noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-52073759868065088162017-01-23T12:58:13.305+00:002017-01-23T12:58:13.305+00:00I rather think that was my point.I rather think that was my point.Mike Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06039663158335543317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-33743106963032756482017-01-23T12:56:46.121+00:002017-01-23T12:56:46.121+00:00Or maybe it was the other way round? Maybe'Hou...Or maybe it was the other way round? Maybe'House' was inspired by Holmes? <br /><br />I reckon Doyle's big idea was taking something we're all familiar with (him in particular) - a doctor diagnosing an illness - and putting it in an unfamiliar context: instead of symptoms, we have clues, instead of an illness, we have a crime, etc. Obvious, yet inspired.Aonghus Fallonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09434527113873901741noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-84097776880891203322017-01-23T12:27:26.705+00:002017-01-23T12:27:26.705+00:00Is it really that absurd, though? It seems to me t...<i>Is it really that absurd, though? It seems to me that the criteria which makes Holmes a good detective could be just as easily be applied to being a good doctor.</i><br /><br />You just invented <i>House</i>.<br /><br />Shame Paul Attanasio and David Shore got there 13 years before.Mike Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06039663158335543317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-23072097106395042162017-01-23T12:23:36.819+00:002017-01-23T12:23:36.819+00:00Is it really that absurd, though? It seems to me t...Is it really that absurd, though? It seems to me that the criteria which makes Holmes a good detective could be just as easily be applied to being a good doctor - Doyle's chosen profession. Problem is, Holmes' particular skill-set is largely redundant in modern-day London, hence the need to exaggerate it (and maybe to place additional emphasis on his bromance with Watson). <br /><br />I can see the temptation of blaming plot inconsistencies on your villain, and wonder what you'd call it - Malus ex Machina, maybe?Aonghus Fallonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09434527113873901741noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-45132416425312366342017-01-22T23:03:58.328+00:002017-01-22T23:03:58.328+00:00The Final Problem (TV episode) produced newspaper ...<i>The Final Problem (TV episode) produced newspaper headlines about “How the TV phenomenon became an annoying self parody”</i><br /><br />It did indeed. Which I found very strange because whatever <i>The Final Problem</i> might or might not have been a parody of, it certainly wasn't the preceding twelve episodes, with which it had almost nothing in common other than the names of the characters.<br /><br />Regarding the series as a whole you can put me firmly in the camp that has no problem with Moffat and Gatiss's Sherlock having little to do with Conan Doyle. Perhaps not coincidentally, I am also very firmly in the camp that has no problem with Matt Smith's Doctor Who having little to do with William Hartnell's, or indeed Sylvester McCoy's. I am more than happy for clever writers to take the mythic elements of a long-running narrative and use them as the raw ingredients for something new.<br /><br />You're right about the poverty of the super-clever-bad-guy-sets-puzzles-for-clever-good-guy plot, though.<br /><br />I've never read any of the Ultimate Marvel comics. But it strikes me that series that reaches as far as the 75th issue before it's said all it has to say is really not doing too badly. In the same way, if Sherlock has now reached the point where it can't really continue without either repeating itself -- well, a series of thirteen episodes, each about the length of a feature film, is a pretty darned good run.<br /><br />FInally ... Smith and Capaldi interchangeable? Come, now.<br /><br />And finally, finally: has Martin Smith ever been anything that he didn't make twice as good by his presence? If you doubt that contention, just image the Hobbit movies with someone else -- Elijah Wood, say -- in the title role.<br />Mike Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06039663158335543317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-339908028241226932017-01-22T22:48:23.450+00:002017-01-22T22:48:23.450+00:00This comment has been removed by the author.Lirazelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07740446717034940156noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-36250357205337386272017-01-22T22:47:47.374+00:002017-01-22T22:47:47.374+00:00What I found most sad about the last episode was t...What I found most sad about the last episode was the very tired Bad Seed trope. Imagining the Holmes' family life and early childhood could have been amusing, but I figured out who the Big Bad was about half-way through "The Lying Detective," and that killed most of the joy for me. I had the reputation of being too smart for my own good at that age (it's a particularly damaging label for a girl), and I think it's a really cheap way to create a monster.Lirazelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07740446717034940156noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-76369888665773372322017-01-22T22:44:01.875+00:002017-01-22T22:44:01.875+00:00Too many adaptations try to turn Holmes into an &q...Too many adaptations try to turn Holmes into an "epic", superhero character in an epic superhero story. Doyle tried to make Holmes a superhero in "The Final Problem" and it was possibly the least convincing thing he ever wrote (aside from "The Empty House"). Holmes is a creature best suited to short stories (with small-scale and simple plots built around a single clever twist each); not novels, movies, or near-movie-length TV episodes. Very few adaptations have managed to figure this out.<br /><br />I'm pleased to find that video I uploaded five years ago is still going around. Incidentally, a different Russian TV channel did <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYYLBaQl0HY" rel="nofollow">a similar parody</a>, which isn't quite as funny but does include the 2013 Russian series as another Holmes to mock.Swamp Adderhttp://swamp-adder.tumblr.comnoreply@blogger.com