I've been a fan of Sherlock Holmes since i was a kid.I'll be intrested to see how the present day concept works.
Sherlock - New BBC Drama
2 of 151
Originally Posted by kiviraat:
“I'm really looking forward to it (have been since it was first announced as a concept). I'm not so sure about Cumberpatch, but I hope he grows on me, but Martin Freeman as Watson seems like a very good choice!”
“I'm really looking forward to it (have been since it was first announced as a concept). I'm not so sure about Cumberpatch, but I hope he grows on me, but Martin Freeman as Watson seems like a very good choice!”
Isn't that weird, I thought the exact opposite. Hadn't ever seen Cumberpatch in anything before, but after seeing him in a breakfast time interview, realise he is probably the best person for the role, but Freeman??? Total curve ball (for me anyway
)Watson is supposed to be us, Freeman is quirky, confused, not-us.
Still, VERY looking forward to this
I'm also a fan of the original novels and stories, and I have to say that I'm looking forward to this too.
I have complete faith in Gatiss and Moffat's talents as writers and in their love for, and knowledge of, the characters with which they're dealing.
Can't wait.
I have complete faith in Gatiss and Moffat's talents as writers and in their love for, and knowledge of, the characters with which they're dealing.
Can't wait.
BBC mainstream drama just doesn't have integrity any more, you can feel the heavy hand of the executive on every line.
And there is really no excuse for cheapness which is surely the real reason for a modern times setting. The point of the TV licence is freedom I seem to recall.
And there is really no excuse for cheapness which is surely the real reason for a modern times setting. The point of the TV licence is freedom I seem to recall.
Originally Posted by Tassium:
“BBC mainstream drama just doesn't have integrity any more, you can feel the heavy hand of the executive on every line.
And there is really no excuse for cheapness which is surely the real reason for a modern times setting. The point of the TV licence is freedom I seem to recall.”
“BBC mainstream drama just doesn't have integrity any more, you can feel the heavy hand of the executive on every line.
And there is really no excuse for cheapness which is surely the real reason for a modern times setting. The point of the TV licence is freedom I seem to recall.”
Nothing like judging something before you've seen it, is there?
Anyway, for those that are interested in the show - rather than taking pot shots at the BBC - the early indications look positive, at least on the critical front:
"It's early days, but the first of three 90-minute movies, A Study In Pink, is brilliantly promising. It has the finesse of Spooks but is indisputably Sherlock Holmes. The deduction sequences are ingenious, and the plot is classic Moffat intricacy."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-rad...at-mark-gatiss
also...
http://www.tv.com/story/23487.html
http://channelhopping.onthebox.com/2...-sht-sherlock/
I know we don't want to read too much into blogs and reviews, but they usually do at least call out if the shows a stinker. And that certainly doesn't seem the case.
Originally Posted by abercrombie:
“Isn't that weird, I thought the exact opposite. Hadn't ever seen Cumberpatch in anything before, but after seeing him in a breakfast time interview, realise he is probably the best person for the role, but Freeman??? Total curve ball (for me anyway)
Watson is supposed to be us, Freeman is quirky, confused, not-us.
Still, VERY looking forward to this”
“Isn't that weird, I thought the exact opposite. Hadn't ever seen Cumberpatch in anything before, but after seeing him in a breakfast time interview, realise he is probably the best person for the role, but Freeman??? Total curve ball (for me anyway
)Watson is supposed to be us, Freeman is quirky, confused, not-us.
Still, VERY looking forward to this
”
His name is Cumberbatch.
Originally Posted by Tassium:
“And there is really no excuse for cheapness which is surely the real reason for a modern times setting.”
“And there is really no excuse for cheapness which is surely the real reason for a modern times setting.”
Oh I don't think so. The updating of literary classics to contemporary times has a long and valid history, plus the beeb will have wanted some sort of hook to grab viewers who might otherwise think 'seen it'.
Another new review (spoiler-free) of Episode 1...
http://www.lastbroadcast.co.uk/drama...y-in-pink.html
Sounds promising!
http://www.lastbroadcast.co.uk/drama...y-in-pink.html
Sounds promising!
Originally Posted by Tassium:
“BBC mainstream drama just doesn't have integrity any more, you can feel the heavy hand of the executive on every line.
And there is really no excuse for cheapness which is surely the real reason for a modern times setting. The point of the TV licence is freedom I seem to recall.”
“BBC mainstream drama just doesn't have integrity any more, you can feel the heavy hand of the executive on every line.
And there is really no excuse for cheapness which is surely the real reason for a modern times setting. The point of the TV licence is freedom I seem to recall.”
Why don't you give it a chance, rather than reciting your extreme pre-judice?
Originally Posted by sn_22:
“Nothing like judging something before you've seen it, is there?
Anyway, for those that are interested in the show - rather than taking pot shots at the BBC - the early indications look positive, at least on the critical front:
"It's early days, but the first of three 90-minute movies, A Study In Pink, is brilliantly promising. It has the finesse of Spooks but is indisputably Sherlock Holmes. The deduction sequences are ingenious, and the plot is classic Moffat intricacy."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-rad...at-mark-gatiss
also...
http://www.tv.com/story/23487.html
http://channelhopping.onthebox.com/2...-sht-sherlock/
I know we don't want to read too much into blogs and reviews, but they usually do at least call out if the shows a stinker. And that certainly doesn't seem the case.”
“Nothing like judging something before you've seen it, is there?
Anyway, for those that are interested in the show - rather than taking pot shots at the BBC - the early indications look positive, at least on the critical front:
"It's early days, but the first of three 90-minute movies, A Study In Pink, is brilliantly promising. It has the finesse of Spooks but is indisputably Sherlock Holmes. The deduction sequences are ingenious, and the plot is classic Moffat intricacy."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-rad...at-mark-gatiss
also...
http://www.tv.com/story/23487.html
http://channelhopping.onthebox.com/2...-sht-sherlock/
I know we don't want to read too much into blogs and reviews, but they usually do at least call out if the shows a stinker. And that certainly doesn't seem the case.”
When should people stop giving the BBC "another chance"?
I also don't see many people leaping to the defence of anything that ITV puts out nowadays, although ITV drama is usually head and shoulders above anything BBC cobbles together.
I hope it's good! I am looking foward to it just hope they don't make the character of Sherlock lame.
It's elimentery my dear people, Moriarty will make an appearance in this series. But in what form? 
My guess is it is going to be a woman playing the part!
My guess is it is going to be a woman playing the part!
Originally Posted by Tassium:
“BBC mainstream drama just doesn't have integrity any more, you can feel the heavy hand of the executive on every line.
And there is really no excuse for cheapness which is surely the real reason for a modern times setting. The point of the TV licence is freedom I seem to recall.”
“BBC mainstream drama just doesn't have integrity any more, you can feel the heavy hand of the executive on every line.
And there is really no excuse for cheapness which is surely the real reason for a modern times setting. The point of the TV licence is freedom I seem to recall.”
I suspect the real reason is that the last full TV version, done by ITV (http://www.itv.com/drama/classiccrim...s/default.html) was in period, and is pretty much definitive. Shocking as it seems, back then ITV could make drama quite well.
Originally Posted by Tassium:
“When should people stop giving the BBC "another chance"?
I also don't see many people leaping to the defence of anything that ITV puts out nowadays, although ITV drama is usually head and shoulders above anything BBC cobbles together.”
“When should people stop giving the BBC "another chance"?
I also don't see many people leaping to the defence of anything that ITV puts out nowadays, although ITV drama is usually head and shoulders above anything BBC cobbles together.”
Do ITV still make drama?
Originally Posted by Tassium:
“When should people stop giving the BBC "another chance"?
I also don't see many people leaping to the defence of anything that ITV puts out nowadays, although ITV drama is usually head and shoulders above anything BBC cobbles together.”
“When should people stop giving the BBC "another chance"?
I also don't see many people leaping to the defence of anything that ITV puts out nowadays, although ITV drama is usually head and shoulders above anything BBC cobbles together.”
Is this a joke ?
the guy who's sherlock displeases me theres something about him and i can't put my finger on it, he shall be very distracting once the show that is sherlock airs on our very tv.
I'm looking forward to this. I think Benadict Cumberbatch is a extremely good actor, seen him in several things and I think Martin Freeman will be a perfect Watson. I do love a good Sherlock Holmes 
That said, I also really enjoyed the RDJ movie too.
That said, I also really enjoyed the RDJ movie too.
I'll give this a chance, in that I'll record it in case it's a complete waste of time.
New slants on old established drama stories are always a "pig in a poke."
Seems a lazy way of writing.
New slants on old established drama stories are always a "pig in a poke."
Seems a lazy way of writing.
Originally Posted by muppetonastring:
“It's elimentery my dear people, Moriarty will make an appearance in this series. But in what form?
My guess is it is going to be a woman playing the part!”
“It's elimentery my dear people, Moriarty will make an appearance in this series. But in what form?
My guess is it is going to be a woman playing the part!”
It'll be his cat
Still... Look on the bright side, if it's "pants" it's only a waste of three "prime time" spots on consecutive Sunday nights.
This now counts as a "series."
In the "old days" you'd get at least six episodes, before they started throwing their money about on other things.
Same old BBC; promises of "more drama," but actually "less of it."
This now counts as a "series."
In the "old days" you'd get at least six episodes, before they started throwing their money about on other things.
Same old BBC; promises of "more drama," but actually "less of it."
Originally Posted by Doghouse Riley:
“Still... Look on the bright side, if it's "pants" it's only a waste of three "prime time" spots on consecutive Sunday nights.
This now counts as a "series."
In the "old days" you'd get at least six episodes, before they started throwing their money about on other things.
Same old BBC; promises of "more drama," but actually "less of it."”
“Still... Look on the bright side, if it's "pants" it's only a waste of three "prime time" spots on consecutive Sunday nights.
This now counts as a "series."
In the "old days" you'd get at least six episodes, before they started throwing their money about on other things.
Same old BBC; promises of "more drama," but actually "less of it."”
I do wish they'd commit outright to more episodes too. Though they are 90 minutes in length though. So overall thats 4.5 hours. Were a lot of dramas back in the "old days" meerly 50 minutes?
And I don't think its that they're spending any less on these episodes - just that they can't really get away with the cheap studio-bound production they could in the past.
Originally Posted by Doghouse Riley:
“Still... Look on the bright side, if it's "pants" it's only a waste of three "prime time" spots on consecutive Sunday nights.
This now counts as a "series."
In the "old days" you'd get at least six episodes, before they started throwing their money about on other things.
Same old BBC; promises of "more drama," but actually "less of it."”
“Still... Look on the bright side, if it's "pants" it's only a waste of three "prime time" spots on consecutive Sunday nights.
This now counts as a "series."
In the "old days" you'd get at least six episodes, before they started throwing their money about on other things.
Same old BBC; promises of "more drama," but actually "less of it."”
What rubbish. The BBC have always done mini-series and one off movies/plays/dramas.
Quite apart from that, these three episodes are equal to nine half hour episodes.
My personal opinion is that the BBC is the only thing that is keeping the rest of our TV up to any sort of standard - lose the BBC and you'll soon see EVERY other channel's quality plummet to obscene depths. We NEED the BBC and long may it reign.
2 of 151
