With a couple more days still to account for, The Empty Hearse has currently added 3.43m viewers who watched time-shifted via iPlayer, Sky+ etc. The current audience total is 12.61m - massive.
Whatever the debate about quality, the series is still hugely popular. We'll have to see what the audience for eps 2 & 3 are.
Especially when there exists a straight up, direct book adaptation that is consider the definitive one. Re-doing the Holmes stories as direct adaptations of the book brings you slap bang up against Jeremy Brett and comparisons there. It's no secret I'm not a huge fan of the ITV Miss Marple adaptations. For me, the Joan Hickson BBC versions are the definitive and anything else that just reworks the stories in a similar vein is a waste of time I'd feel the same if the BBC started mucking about with Piorot because the ITV Suchet ones are the gold standard (to me).
At least by bring Sherlock into present day (and making Watson a woman in the case of Elementary) they are taking it away from those direct comparisons.
Anyone who has read the books or watched various adaptations has 'their' Holmes or 'their' Marple (or 'their' Inspector Lynley). I suppose the trick is casting someone who captures the essence enough to be acceptable even though it's different to what's in their heads.
Actually, thinking about it - I'd quite like to see a modern Peter Wimsey ...
I agree.
I wonder what folk make of the Robert Downey Jr movie Holmes?
I wonder what folk make of the Robert Downey Jr movie Holmes?
I put off watching those movies because I didn't think they'd compare, finally watched them last autumn and the great thing was they didn't compare at all, I thought RDJ was excellent probably because he was so different. Jude Law, I'm less sure about. I've read, and loved, the books and I also watch Elementary although I almost didn't because I couldn't see Sick Boy/Mr Knightley as Holmes! Actually, he's pretty good too. Sherlock remains my favourite.
With a couple more days still to account for, The Empty Hearse has currently added 3.43m viewers who watched time-shifted via iPlayer, Sky+ etc. The current audience total is 12.61m - massive.
Whatever the debate about quality, the series is still hugely popular. We'll have to see what the audience for eps 2 & 3 are.
According to The Ratings Thread, so far an extra 1 million for ep 2 after one day.
Especially when there exists a straight up, direct book adaptation that is consider the definitive one. Re-doing the Holmes stories as direct adaptations of the book brings you slap bang up against Jeremy Brett and comparisons there. It's no secret I'm not a huge fan of the ITV Miss Marple adaptations. For me, the Joan Hickson BBC versions are the definitive and anything else that just reworks the stories in a similar vein is a waste of time I'd feel the same if the BBC started mucking about with Piorot because the ITV Suchet ones are the gold standard (to me).
At least by bring Sherlock into present day (and making Watson a woman in the case of Elementary) they are taking it away from those direct comparisons.
Anyone who has read the books or watched various adaptations has 'their' Holmes or 'their' Marple (or 'their' Inspector Lynley). I suppose the trick is casting someone who captures the essence enough to be acceptable even though it's different to what's in their heads.
Actually, thinking about it - I'd quite like to see a modern Peter Wimsey ...
It’s because we have these fixed “definitive” versions of characters and stories in our minds that I’m quite happy to accept different ways of doing Marple. There would be no point in doing a word for word, scene for scene remake of the Joan Hickson ones, so they might as well create new ones by tweaking the story. OK, it is no longer a “Christie” but it can still be worth watching on its own merits, IMO, as a new story, provided you try and forget the old ones. Also, I don’t mind some minor character changes. For example I was comfortable with the back story of the married lover dying in the first world war in the Geraldine McKewan (sp?) version.
I’m less happy with shoe-horning her into completely unrelated mysteries. Over Christmas, I watched Endless Night, “with added Marple”. Its a pity that they feel they have to rely on the name Marple, as all they do is demean both the original story and the brand name of Marple.. I’d prefer it if they would take the bull by the horns and actually “do” Christie stories, covering the ones without Poirot or Marple, and use Christie as the selling point.
I wonder what folk make of the Robert Downey Jr movie Holmes?
I loved the RDJ movies - they were fantastic fun! But I'm not a purist in any sense.
Sherlock is (was) a totally different sort of adaptation - I love(d) that, too.
And, in a completely different way, I loved the Jeremy Brett series.
I've not seen Elementary, as I only have Freeview, but if it becomes possible, I will watch it.
(Aggs mentioned Lord Peter Wimsey. As an anti-aristo Socialist I ought to completely disapprove of him, but I'm afraid on my list of fictional characters I love the most, he comes very near the top. I think it's high time for a modern adaptation! )
I put off watching those movies because I didn't think they'd compare, finally watched them last autumn and the great thing was they didn't compare at all, I thought RDJ was excellent probably because he was so different. Jude Law, I'm less sure about. I've read, and loved, the books and I also watch Elementary although I almost didn't because I couldn't see Sick Boy/Mr Knightley as Holmes! Actually, he's pretty good too. Sherlock remains my favourite.
Out of all the Holmes I've seen - none of the Sherlocks have bothered me half as much as Jude Law as Watson. It's just wrong!
I loved the RDJ movies - they were fantastic fun! But I'm not a purist in any sense.
Sherlock is (was) a totally different sort of adaptation - I love(d) that, too.
And, in a completely different way, I loved the Jeremy Brett series.
I've not seen Elementary, as I only have Freeview, but if it becomes possible, I will watch it.
(Aggs mentioned Lord Peter Wimsey. As an anti-aristo Socialist I ought to completely disapprove of him, but I'm afraid on my list of fictional characters I love the most, he comes very near the top. I think it's high time for a modern adaptation! )
Probably because you know that <not that> deep down, Wimsey agrees with you ;-)
I missed Robert Stephens off my list of favourite Sherlocks! How could I? He's wonderful in that film which I have on DVD and often rewatch. So poignant.
I believe I read somewhere that Gatiss and Moffat watched it before writing their version of "The Woman".
To me Jeremy Brett was excellent as the Victorian Sherlock - a breath of fresh air at the time - when he smoked and took drugs.
Now Benedict Cumberbatch is excellent as the modern day Sherlock and Martin Freeman a great Dr Watson. They are both extremely good actors and carry it off very well. Unfortunately the scripts seem to have gone down hill. The first two series were brilliantly constructed modern versions of the original stories. The last two stories strike of self indulgence by the script writers and where I was expecting a modern version of the Sign of Four all I got was a rather prolonged wedding speech. Yes it was very funny in parts but it never went anywhere and was too long for the content. Like the curates egg it was good in parts and if it wasn't for the excellent acting by all it could have become boring. I hope that the last one pulls it together again. Does anyone know if there will be a fourth series?
I put off watching those movies because I didn't think they'd compare, finally watched them last autumn and the great thing was they didn't compare at all, I thought RDJ was excellent probably because he was so different. Jude Law, I'm less sure about. I've read, and loved, the books and I also watch Elementary although I almost didn't because I couldn't see Sick Boy/Mr Knightley as Holmes! Actually, he's pretty good too. Sherlock remains my favourite.
I've only seen the first film, which I found diverting enough. As you say- a very different beast. The only thing with RDJ is that I find it hard to watch him as Holmes without seeing a little bit of Tony Stark in there. (Which is entirely my problem.)
I wonder what folk make of the Robert Downey Jr movie Holmes?
IMO, the first film wasn't as good as Sherlock series 1. I thought it "borrowed" some of the ideas from the BBC. Even though the second movie was worse than the first, it was still better than Sherlock series 2.
Robert Downey Jr is good, but he just seems to be in too many lead roles at the moment and he plays all his roles in a similar, casual manner. Jude Law doesn't bother me in the role of Watson.
According to The Ratings Thread, so far an extra 1 million for ep 2 after one day.
Thanks. I think it's reasonable to assume we'll see the final number for episode 2 somewhere around 11m - not a major drop-off the doom-mongers have been insisting will happen and, quite frankly, a stunningly high figure for ANY programme.
I loved the RDJ movies - they were fantastic fun! But I'm not a purist in any sense.
Sherlock is (was) a totally different sort of adaptation - I love(d) that, too.
And, in a completely different way, I loved the Jeremy Brett series.
I've not seen Elementary, as I only have Freeview, but if it becomes possible, I will watch it.
(Aggs mentioned Lord Peter Wimsey. As an anti-aristo Socialist I ought to completely disapprove of him, but I'm afraid on my list of fictional characters I love the most, he comes very near the top. I think it's high time for a modern adaptation! )
A modern version or a period version? I think either could work.
The only Wimseys I ever remember on TV were the Ian Carmichael ones which i saw at the time they were first shown, and then some later ones which also had Harriet Walters in them as Harriet Vane (I can't remember the actors name), which I only saw several years after they had been made and which didn't move me much to be honest - it looked as though they had been done on the cheap, and hadn't worn well. Were they part of a wider series of Sayers' stories?
I've only seen the first film, which I found diverting enough. As you say- a very different beast. The only thing with RDJ is that I find it hard to watch him as Holmes without seeing a little bit of Tony Stark in there. (Which is entirely my problem.)
I think everyone gets this from time to time. I kept expecting Martin Freeman to look at the camera in that "look-what-I-have-to-put-up-with" expression throughout Sherlock - which probably added to my disillusionment.
In the scene where Sherlock and John were drunk and playing the game with the rizlas on their foreheads, Sherlock sounded like he was channelling Alan Rickman.
Cumberbatch has performed an Alan Rickman impression on various TV shows. Perhaps he discovered his ability to do it one night whilst drunk?
To me Jeremy Brett was excellent as the Victorian Sherlock - a breath of fresh air at the time - when he smoked and took drugs.
Now Benedict Cumberbatch is excellent as the modern day Sherlock and Martin Freeman a great Dr Watson. They are both extremely good actors and carry it off very well. Unfortunately the scripts seem to have gone down hill. The first two series were brilliantly constructed modern versions of the original stories. The last two stories strike of self indulgence by the script writers and where I was expecting a modern version of the Sign of Four all I got was a rather prolonged wedding speech. Yes it was very funny in parts but it never went anywhere and was too long for the content. Like the curates egg it was good in parts and if it wasn't for the excellent acting by all it could have become boring. I hope that the last one pulls it together again. Does anyone know if there will be a fourth series?
Fourth season already commissioned - both stars had already signed up for seasons 3 and 4. Given the ratings and the amount of PR it creates for the BBC (not to mention merchandising revenues and international sales), that was always going to be the case.
The first two eps of this series have been lighter in tone and more relationship-driven, which some people haven't liked. The finale, quite categorically, is not driven by humour, but equally bear in mind that in the two source stories for the finale Holmes doesn't actually do any meaningful detective work in either.
I agree with those who think this new series has spent far too much time on the relationships. Contrast with "Elementary" - with 20+ episodes per season and there is less about the relationship. Maybe the powers-that-be at the BBC want Moffat to focus on this aspect now?
A modern version or a period version? I think either could work.
The only Wimseys I ever remember on TV were the Ian Carmichael ones which i saw at the time they were first shown, and then some later ones which also had Harriet Walters in them as Harriet Vane (I can't remember the actors name), which I only saw several years after they had been made and which didn't move me much to be honest - it looked as though they had been done on the cheap, and hadn't worn well. Were they part of a wider series of Sayers' stories?
I agree - either would do me.:D
I preferred the Edward Petherbridge/Harriet Walters adaptation to the Ian Carmichael ones. The latter was too Wooster-like. Yes, I know Wimsey was, at times, but it was only a mask. And I can't even remember who, if anyone, played Harriet.
I thought Walters was perfect as Harriet. I always think of Harriet Vane whenever I see her on TV (a bit like slouchingthatch and Tony Stark!)
Sorry, I'm way off topic, as usual - I'll stop now. Some phrases are like signals that set me off on one of my hobby horses, and "Peter Wimsey" is one of them.
Comments
You can't share? Definitely a 'he' then?!
Whatever the debate about quality, the series is still hugely popular. We'll have to see what the audience for eps 2 & 3 are.
And I have no idea who he/she really is.
I wonder what folk make of the Robert Downey Jr movie Holmes?
I put off watching those movies because I didn't think they'd compare, finally watched them last autumn and the great thing was they didn't compare at all, I thought RDJ was excellent probably because he was so different. Jude Law, I'm less sure about. I've read, and loved, the books and I also watch Elementary although I almost didn't because I couldn't see Sick Boy/Mr Knightley as Holmes! Actually, he's pretty good too. Sherlock remains my favourite.
Ist time I have heard of this. Thanks for link. Interesting info.
According to The Ratings Thread, so far an extra 1 million for ep 2 after one day.
It’s because we have these fixed “definitive” versions of characters and stories in our minds that I’m quite happy to accept different ways of doing Marple. There would be no point in doing a word for word, scene for scene remake of the Joan Hickson ones, so they might as well create new ones by tweaking the story. OK, it is no longer a “Christie” but it can still be worth watching on its own merits, IMO, as a new story, provided you try and forget the old ones. Also, I don’t mind some minor character changes. For example I was comfortable with the back story of the married lover dying in the first world war in the Geraldine McKewan (sp?) version.
I’m less happy with shoe-horning her into completely unrelated mysteries. Over Christmas, I watched Endless Night, “with added Marple”. Its a pity that they feel they have to rely on the name Marple, as all they do is demean both the original story and the brand name of Marple.. I’d prefer it if they would take the bull by the horns and actually “do” Christie stories, covering the ones without Poirot or Marple, and use Christie as the selling point.
I agree about Peter Wimsey, as well.
I loved the RDJ movies - they were fantastic fun! But I'm not a purist in any sense.
Sherlock is (was) a totally different sort of adaptation - I love(d) that, too.
And, in a completely different way, I loved the Jeremy Brett series.
I've not seen Elementary, as I only have Freeview, but if it becomes possible, I will watch it.
(Aggs mentioned Lord Peter Wimsey. As an anti-aristo Socialist I ought to completely disapprove of him, but I'm afraid on my list of fictional characters I love the most, he comes very near the top. I think it's high time for a modern adaptation!
I haven't seen that film for ages - it was probably rubbish but really want to see it again, now. Perfect afternoon viewing.
Out of all the Holmes I've seen - none of the Sherlocks have bothered me half as much as Jude Law as Watson. It's just wrong!
Probably because you know that <not that> deep down, Wimsey agrees with you ;-)
I missed Robert Stephens off my list of favourite Sherlocks! How could I? He's wonderful in that film which I have on DVD and often rewatch. So poignant.
I believe I read somewhere that Gatiss and Moffat watched it before writing their version of "The Woman".
You're right.
Now Benedict Cumberbatch is excellent as the modern day Sherlock and Martin Freeman a great Dr Watson. They are both extremely good actors and carry it off very well. Unfortunately the scripts seem to have gone down hill. The first two series were brilliantly constructed modern versions of the original stories. The last two stories strike of self indulgence by the script writers and where I was expecting a modern version of the Sign of Four all I got was a rather prolonged wedding speech. Yes it was very funny in parts but it never went anywhere and was too long for the content. Like the curates egg it was good in parts and if it wasn't for the excellent acting by all it could have become boring. I hope that the last one pulls it together again. Does anyone know if there will be a fourth series?
IMO, the first film wasn't as good as Sherlock series 1. I thought it "borrowed" some of the ideas from the BBC. Even though the second movie was worse than the first, it was still better than Sherlock series 2.
Robert Downey Jr is good, but he just seems to be in too many lead roles at the moment and he plays all his roles in a similar, casual manner. Jude Law doesn't bother me in the role of Watson.
A modern version or a period version? I think either could work.
The only Wimseys I ever remember on TV were the Ian Carmichael ones which i saw at the time they were first shown, and then some later ones which also had Harriet Walters in them as Harriet Vane (I can't remember the actors name), which I only saw several years after they had been made and which didn't move me much to be honest - it looked as though they had been done on the cheap, and hadn't worn well. Were they part of a wider series of Sayers' stories?
I think everyone gets this from time to time. I kept expecting Martin Freeman to look at the camera in that "look-what-I-have-to-put-up-with" expression throughout Sherlock - which probably added to my disillusionment.
Cumberbatch has performed an Alan Rickman impression on various TV shows. Perhaps he discovered his ability to do it one night whilst drunk?
The first two eps of this series have been lighter in tone and more relationship-driven, which some people haven't liked. The finale, quite categorically, is not driven by humour, but equally bear in mind that in the two source stories for the finale Holmes doesn't actually do any meaningful detective work in either.
I agree - either would do me.:D
I preferred the Edward Petherbridge/Harriet Walters adaptation to the Ian Carmichael ones. The latter was too Wooster-like. Yes, I know Wimsey was, at times, but it was only a mask. And I can't even remember who, if anyone, played Harriet.
I thought Walters was perfect as Harriet. I always think of Harriet Vane whenever I see her on TV (a bit like slouchingthatch and Tony Stark!)
Sorry, I'm way off topic, as usual - I'll stop now. Some phrases are like signals that set me off on one of my hobby horses, and "Peter Wimsey" is one of them.