It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Anyway, this bothers me a little: "we've expanded hugely the part of Mrs. Hudson [played by Una Stubbs] because she didn't speak in the original."
Is that the reason?? :-/ :-? Surely not...
A lot of time to wait yet...
From the article:
"Moffat said that he had a plan in place for Moriarty to appear again in the series since season 2, with Scott in on the plan as well," states the Enstars report.
Unless people have forgotten, the writers found a way to bring back Moriarty/Scott in series 3 without making him come back from the proverbial grave, and I think that's exactly how it will be in series 4. He will continue to plague Sherlock's mind, and maybe make the detective question if he too faked his death on the rooftop, but I think it will ultimately be revealed that someone else is behind the face of Moriarty, either a follower of his or a completely unrelated villain to his web of crime.
I'm still frustrated at how little resolution there was to the Reichenbach Fall, too. Not only does John know how Sherlock survived, but the detective doesn't even bother telling his friend that he took the leap to effectively save him, Mrs. Hudson and Lestrade from certain death. I think that if John knew that he wouldn't be as angry at him, don't you think? And why wouldn't Sherlock check to insure that Moriarty truly was dead, like taking his pulse? We never get anything resolved about Moriarty: what happened to the body, if the body was even there any longer, how were the media still able to discover Moriarty's web of lies he planted through Richard Brook, and much more. It left me unsatisfied as if most of the fall left no real impact because too many details got swept under the rug. That being said, I'm holding to the idea that Moriarty is sleeping with the fishes. If they brought him back it'd be the stupidest thing the writers could do. It cheapens all that Reichenbach stood for, and the entire reason for Sherlock's hiatus.
I definitely understand your grievances, and agree with you on some of them. My biggest disappointments of the series were with how little was done with the aftermath of the fall (beyond Sherlock coming back), Sherlock's questionable story about how he survived, how horridly Moran was wasted as a character and the shoehorned and rather unsatisfying London bomb plot that should've felt monumental. My favorite moments however were how Mary and John's love was presented developed, Sherlock's return, the wedding and best man's speech, Sherlock's drug problem brought to the forefront again, the brilliant adaption of Milverton in Magnussen, and how all the characters were effectively developed and have visibly changed since series 1.
We know how he did it and everyone knows he's alive and that Moriarty framed him. What more do you need?
No, we don't know without a doubt that what he told Anderson was true, if that was real or all just in Anderson's mind. I loved the theory presented, but I just wish it was less dubious and that Sherlock would just tell John the damn truth for once. Maybe then he'd stop getting punched.
As for the Moriarty business, it was just shoddily wrapped up in a few seconds of exposition. We have no idea what happened to Moriarty after he shot himself. No mention of a dead body in the news or any of that, and it is never explained just how it is proved that Richard Brook was a lie. I just feel like it was too quickly written away, and rather badly at that. You could've had Sherlock recording the conversation on the rooftop, leaving it behind for the Yard to find, or something like that.
If I wrote the episode I'd cut out the bomb plot that never came to proper fruition, and focus as @Creasy said on Sherlock's return, reunions and the case against him where he would prove himself to be the genuine article and proved Brook's fraudulence. That way Moran (who is a very good character, regardless of what Gatiss says) could be used later on instead of being wasted without getting a single damn line of dialogue in the episode. As a fan of the original canon, this was just a massive let down for me. I wish they'd have named the bomber something else so that Moran could be used later, like as the culprit who is behind the guise of Moriarty now heading into series 4. I looked forward to Moran and John, two military men facing off and becoming foils for each other like Moriarty and Sherlock are to each other (two halves of the same coin and all that), but I was sorely disappointed. I don't expect the writers to follow what I want, I just wish they'd have backed off from wasting a great character on a bomber who has no dimensions and who we have no proper background for. At least make Moran the last surviving member of Moriarty's web of crime (the reason for why Sherlock must return to London) or something like that, and give him a purpose for Doyle's sake. There were no stakes in the bomb plot at all or in Moran as a threat. Now, if say, Mycroft was in the Parliament at the time of the bomb ticking down, that would've been magnificent and provided some suspense, but the writing just fell flat once Sherlock and John found the abandoned station. Meh...
In fact, Moffat is hardly speaking about season 4 at all.
I feel with you somehow, but at the same time I´m very happy with the direction the third season took. In the end, it would have been not so interesting to see all the details, since we all know the outcome. I wouldn´t have been offended if Sherlock´s surviving of the fall would have been explained in a definite way, but I find the way it was treated a treat.
But that has hardly been the case in seasons 1 and 2, there were most of the time several cases intermingled in each episode. Admittedly, the way it was done changed with season 3, but I think it was done masterfully.
http://metro.co.uk/2014/03/06/mark-gatiss-warns-sherlock-wont-be-back-until-2016-but-confirms-benedict-cumberbatch-is-sexy-4443657/
It is not unexpected though, as he as Moffat had already commented on the fact and even compared the hiatus to the Bond films. Also, as someone once commented to me, the Holmes fandom has always been and always be known as "the fandom who waited".
Also, an interesting piece on Cumberbatch on the NY Times, The Case of the Accidental Superstar.
And as for Mrs. Hudson, I love Una Stubbs, so I have no problem in seeing her part expanded.
Upon closer examination, this episode is very well thought through and makes a lot of sense to me.
Yes, and Moriarty shoots himself right before Sherlock himself takes a leap off a building and supposedly dies, but lives to tell the tale. You'd think Sherlock would be just a tad more thorough in making sure Moriarty truly was a goner and not trying to again out-manuever him, as great minds think alike and all that.
Hearse is a great episode, but it spends a bit too much time on trying to shoe-horn in a mystery that was already underwhelming by mid-episode and wastes a great character like Moran in the process.
This really did have me laughing! Brilliant! ;))
Elementary (1st season) review (warning, contains major spoilers)
Let me start by saying this is a difficult review for me to write, I tried to watch the episodes with an open mind and not to make comparisons with other adaptations but only with the canon. I honestly intended to enjoy it over what it is, a different take on the Holmes. That is the way I will try to tackle this review as well.
The concept is a fairly interesting one, place Holmes in New York, make Watson a woman, nowadays. The cast was interesting, Jonny Lee Miller as Holmes, Lucy Liu as Joan Watson, Aidan Quinn as Gregson. How could it possibly go wrong? Let me start by stating the facts at the start of the series. Holmes, after a traumatic episode in his life (more on that later), loses control over his drug use and becomes a heroin addict. His father sends him to rehab in New York and keeps him there in order to keep him away from drugs (first wtf moment of many). To control him Holmes senior pays ex-doctor turned sobriety companion (didn't even know that sort of thing existed) Joan Watson to move in with Sherlock, take him to addict meetings, test him for drugs, etc. Holmes becomes re-acquainted with an old NYPD detective who did some work in London at some point, Gregson, and starts helping him with homicide investigations. Along the way, Holmes starts training Watson as a detective and the two of them become a team.
Positive things about Elementary: good question! There are a few quotes from the books. And Holmes likes bees. I've spent the past 10 minutes trying to find something else but I can't really, so I quit.
Negative things about Elementary: shall I answer chronologically or randomly? I think I'll just go with the flow:
I couldn't recognize the characters. They could have given them different names and I wouldn't have lost a moment thinking it might be a Sherlock Holmes adaptation.
Holmes – I really like Jonny Lee Miller, he's (usually) a fine actor. I was, therefore, biased to like his portrayal of Holmes. However this Holmes is not my Holmes. At first I blamed the writers, but now I blame the actor as well. This is a paranoid, neurotic, hyperactive, schizophrenic English man who can't control his mind or his body. He's always angry and sad. I don't remember him laughing even once, when in fact in the original stories it happens quite frequently. He's supposed to be a practical joker for heaven's sake (doesn't matter if no one else finds it funny, especially Watson, but for him it's funny). This Holmes is boring! But worst of all what shocked me the most: he's not that smart (perhaps it was the heroin). Let's take a moment to think about this, shall we? The cases are so obvious I was able to deduce (not guess, not that it matters here) who was the culprit at first sight in every-single-bloody-episode! Not only the cases were obvious, but most of them were ridiculous. This Holmes is a regular client of prostitutes (so much for the legendary Holmesian mind-over-matter self-control), he has loads of tattoos (must be to make him easier to spot), doesn't know how to dress properly (so much for his famous “primness of dress”), he displays no interest in science in general let alone chemistry (that one hurt a lot) or forensics, doesn't play the violin any more (tried to burn it on episode one), is easily fooled by apparently anyone with half a brain, must have enough traumas to employ a full-time psychoanalyst (many times I wished I could slap him in the face and tell him “Pull yourself together, man!”), … I'm going to stop now otherwise I'll never finish this review.
Watson – she's boring. She quit being a surgeon because one of her patients died (wtf!) and now she's a junky babysitter. Let's look at the essential bits of Watson in the canon: 1) he's a military man, 2) he's a war veteran, 3) he's a bohemian, 4) he's a good doctor, 5) he's a man of action, 6) he's addicted to dangerous situations, 7) he's an intelligent man but he's not Holmes intellectual equal, 8) he's a ladies man, 9) he's fascinated (and some times irritated) by Holmes. Now let's look at Joan Watson: she's none of the above. The fact Watson is a woman in this adaptation has no influence in my opinion, just the fact that she's nothing like good old Dr. John H. Watson. This Watson seems to be, most times, more intelligent than Holmes, she's always controlling Holmes and “analysing” his behaviour, his feelings, his needs... With just a little bit of training she's as good as Holmes, easy like that.
Other characters (only those mentioned in the books) – Mrs Hudson doesn't exist but somewhere along the way a transgender character called Miss Hudson shows up and is supposed to tidy up their home once a week but never showed up again. Holmes' father (apparently a millionaire) is mentioned several times and sends emails and text messages but we never see him. Sebastian Moran is a weird serial killer (but played to perfection by Vinnie Jones) who kills his victims by bleeding them to death hung upside down, actually he was interesting. Gregson is a character only mentioned in the books but takes central stage in this adaptation, probably my favourite character in the series not because he's well adapted but mostly because he's a no-nonsense character for a change. Irene Adler is like a ghost in the series, her memory hanging over everything. So, Holmes was madly in love with her back in London and she was supposedly murdered by Moran. Holmes became obsessed with catching Moran and drowned in a sea of heroin while trying to do it. We get some flashbacks of their romance and for me it made no sense at all. Why was Holmes so interested in her is beyond my understanding. I wonder if the actress playing her was that bad or all that silliness was on purpose. She was more fake than a 5€ coin but lovey-dovey Holmes couldn't see it. Cutting a long (and bad) story short: she's Moriarty, end of story. Somehow I think the writers were convinced they had the smartest twist ever, I'm sad to say it was so obvious and badly handled they should be ashamed of themselves.
This series takes beloved characters and changes them into something else. I wish we had 221B Baker Street, that's a character as much as anyone else in the books, Holmes' house in NY is a poor substitute. The story moves around Holmes' addiction problems when that was a tiny thing in the books. The “humanization” of Holmes only turns him into someone else, someone less interesting. They should learn something: Holmes is different and that is OK, there's no problem with being different, he doesn't need to be saved!!! There is no mystery, no adventure in here, this is just another generic detective tv show, no different from a dozen others and worse than many. If they changed the names of the characters it would make no difference. I hate to make this comparison but Elementary doesn't hold a candle to Sherlock. In fact I will go as far as saying Elementary is the worst Holmes adaptation I ever watched, and I have watched some seriously crappy ones.
P.S.: In spite of the fact that I disliked series 1 I was going to give series 2 a try merely because Rhys Ifans (love him) was playing Mycroft and I was curious. I watched episode 1 this morning and I'm sad to report any resemblance between Elementary Mycroft and any other Mycroft must be pure coincidence. Bye bye Elementary! It was (not) nice to see you!
Furthermore, I´m not surprised that you find the cases boring. Of cours, one could argue here that only the finest get ahead of @Sandy ;-), but seriously: My first scepticism when I first heard of the series was, how many good cases can they crack out if they do a series with many episodes?
The idea of a female Watson sounds as if they were trying to be clever, only ten years late. Twenty in fact. When Bond got a female M, that was original. But anyhow, from what I saw of Elementary, they are not even trying to make something out of the fact that Watson´s a lady.
I´m glad that a) you watched the whole season for us, @Sandy ;-), and b) that my initial feeling about the series seems to be absolutely correct.
I can't compare it to Monk because I never watched it. Your comment about the many episodes is very good, considering that there are not that many cases in the books. The thing is that none of the cases in the show bears any resemblance to a case in the books! They didn't even try that.
Well, it's obviously not Sherlock, but it wasn't trying to be, so that's nice. I liked it fine. There were elements that I thought were great, like the bees Sherlock keeps on the roof of his apartment and the story with the violin, but I didn't get to see enough to fully criticize it to the best of my ability. It has been almost a year since I saw the episodes, so I can't offer much at all to you, unfortunately. Though I can say this: if you are angered over what they did in season 1, one thing they reveal in series 2 would make you buy the show on DVD just to burn it.
a) it is not Holmes or the canon's characters at all
b) I cannot distance myself from that and enjoy it for a regular detective show; I just can't. Plus I didn't like the story or enjoy the characters.
It actually reminded me of House, which I love. House does not use Holmes characters' names (I know "House" is a play on "Holmes" and House has his Watson in Wilson, but really that's it). I hated Holmes on Elementary being a neurotic junkie who was not very smart.
So yeah, I did not like the whole show at all. I thought
If I had enjoyed the story for itself and the acting, that would be different. I like many kinds of detective/crime/mystery stories. But I honestly couldn't.
I just read a couple more things on line about the series Season 2, so it just confirms that - for me, what I enjoy - it is not for me. It sounds almost like a soap melodrama with season 2 having