1182 replies to this topic

[killkenny kid]

I'm absolutely crazy about the SHERLOCK series. Incredible. Great time to be a Holmes fan.

Have to agree with you there, and great time indeed.

[Jim]

Listening to the lovely commentary for A Scandal in Belgravia, seems that the darker aspects of the plot were inspired by something Moffat & Gatiss read in Charles' book on the making of OHMSS. Although Charles is not namechecked, it's evidently his book to which they are referring. Comes up during the fun scenes in the theatre, just pre-deerstalker. Magnificent!

[Matt_13]

Is the BBC show available to see in the US somewhere?

[Mr. Blofeld]

seems that the darker aspects of the plot were inspired by something Moffat & Gatiss read in Charles' book on the making of OHMSS. Although Charles is not namechecked, it's evidently his book to which they are referring. Comes up during the fun scenes in the theatre, just pre-deerstalker. Magnificent!

What specifically, then, Jim? :-)

[Single-O-Seven]

Is the BBC show available to see in the US somewhere?

You can purchase the Region 1 DVD for series 1 from Amazon. PBS shows the series in North America - a couple of weeks ago they re-ran series 1. Series 2 premieres on PBS in May, I believe.

[Jim]

seems that the darker aspects of the plot were inspired by something Moffat & Gatiss read in Charles' book on the making of OHMSS. Although Charles is not namechecked, it's evidently his book to which they are referring. Comes up during the fun scenes in the theatre, just pre-deerstalker. Magnificent!

What specifically, then, Jim? :-)

Well, the

Spoiler

flight of the dead thing to try to smoke out terrorists into believing a plot had worked

that, on reflection

Spoiler

Eon may be using with the eight coffins thing in Skyfall

and apparently had something similar teed up for OHMSS and is referred to in Charles' book.

[Major Tallon]

Listening to the lovely commentary for A Scandal in Belgravia, seems that the darker aspects of the plot were inspired by something Moffat & Gatiss read in Charles' book on the making of OHMSS. Although Charles is not namechecked, it's evidently his book to which they are referring. Comes up during the fun scenes in the theatre, just pre-deerstalker. Magnificent!

Great stuff! We'll be getting the second series of "Sherlock" in May, and I'll be looking forward to this.

[marktmurphy]

seems that the darker aspects of the plot were inspired by something Moffat & Gatiss read in Charles' book on the making of OHMSS. Although Charles is not namechecked, it's evidently his book to which they are referring. Comes up during the fun scenes in the theatre, just pre-deerstalker. Magnificent!

What specifically, then, Jim? :-)

Well, the

Spoiler

flight of the dead thing to try to smoke out terrorists into believing a plot had worked

that, on reflection

Spoiler

Eon may be using with the eight coffins thing in Skyfall

and apparently had something similar teed up for OHMSS and is referred to in Charles' book.

Odd, because to me that seems more like that Kris Kristofferson film Millenium.

[terminus]

Just found on wikipedia and Amazon that the next Young Bond novel is called Snake Bite and is due out in September - but there's also Bedlam to tide us over. Anyone read it?

[doublenoughtspy]

Listening to the lovely commentary for A Scandal in Belgravia, seems that the darker aspects of the plot were inspired by something Moffat & Gatiss read in Charles' book on the making of OHMSS. Although Charles is not namechecked, it's evidently his book to which they are referring. Comes up during the fun scenes in the theatre, just pre-deerstalker. Magnificent!

It was such a surprise when Mark Ashby told me about this. I ordered the DVD immediately. I've been watching Sherlock from the beginning and what an incredible feeling it is for me to have indirectly influenced this amazing show.

Gatiss calling my OHMSS book "Incredible" and "Exhaustive"? Priceless.

For those of you who are curious - my book has a complete breakdown of the scripts and storyboards for this wild, unused scene. I'm very sorry they didn't film it for OHMSS, but It would have been a tremendous amount of work to kill off a minor character.

[Brisco]

So everyone's probably seen this by now, right?

http://www.deadline....lot-elementary/

Lucy Liu will play Watson to Johnny Lee Miller's Sherlock Holmes on CBS's new New York-set contemporary take on the characters. Everyone's going bananas about this, but I say let's wait and see. A CBS procedural will likely be a very different animal from Sherlock. Inferior? Almost certainly. But that doesn't mean there's not room for another take out there. After all, some purists reacted poorly upon hearing that Moffat and Gatiss were going to do a contemporary take, and look how that turned out! I doubt this will be as successful, but I'm willing to give it a shot.

Someone commenting on the Deadline article pointed out it might have been a better move to cast Liu as Holmes rather than Watson, and I have to agree. It certainly would have been more original, anyway. If they're determined to mess with the genders, that's something that, as far as I can recall, we've never seen. Whereas, up until Moffat & Gatiss, it seems like every attempt to contemporize Holmes relied on a female Watson: They Might Be Giants, The Return of Sherlock Holmes, Sherlock Holmes Returns... We've seen a lot of female Watsons.

So it's not necessarily bad. If they go the obvious CBS rout and do it purely to add sexual tension and make them romantic foils, then that will probably be bad. But if they keep Holmes' character intact as someone mistrustful of women in general, then it could make for an interesting dynamic. (Along the lines of the Holmes-meets-The Avengers comic book Ruse.) And who's to say that they couldn't have Joan Watson's brother John get discharged from the army yet down the line? There are interesting places they could go with this. Granted, they probably won't, but I'm willing to wait and see...

[MarkA]

Listening to the lovely commentary for A Scandal in Belgravia, seems that the darker aspects of the plot were inspired by something Moffat & Gatiss read in Charles' book on the making of OHMSS. Although Charles is not namechecked, it's evidently his book to which they are referring. Comes up during the fun scenes in the theatre, just pre-deerstalker. Magnificent!

It was such a surprise when Mark Ashby told me about this. I ordered the DVD immediately. I've been watching Sherlock from the beginning and what an incredible feeling it is for me to have indirectly influenced this amazing show.

Gatiss calling my OHMSS book "Incredible" and "Exhaustive"? Priceless.

For those of you who are curious - my book has a complete breakdown of the scripts and storyboards for this wild, unused scene. I'm very sorry they didn't film it for OHMSS, but It would have been a tremendous amount of work to kill off a minor character.

Bask in that glory Charles. Your 'incredibly exhaustive' book deserves it.

[marktmurphy]

I'll give it a go if it makes it this far, but it does sound pretty crap.

Apparently CBS approached Moffat and Gatiss to do a US version of Sherlock, but then realised that they didn't have to pay for the rights to Holmes so decided to have a bash themselves. Sounds dodgy, and the BBC guys are keeping a careful eye on them; if there's anything of Sherlock in there they'll leap on them.

[Brisco]

I'll give it a go if it makes it this far, but it does sound pretty crap.

Apparently CBS approached Moffat and Gatiss to do a US version of Sherlock, but then realised that they didn't have to pay for the rights to Holmes so decided to have a bash themselves. Sounds dodgy, and the BBC guys are keeping a careful eye on them; if there's anything of Sherlock in there they'll leap on them.

Yeah, I'd read about that, but... I read the script for Elementary today, and Moffat and Gatiss have nothing to worry about. If ONLY Elementary were a bit more like their show! Sadly, it lacks all the devotion to the characters that makes Sherlock so great. It's actually not a bad mystery pilot at all... but it's not Sherlock Holmes. It's basically your average CBS procedural with a character called Sherlock Holmes who's SORT of like Sherlock Holmes, and a character called Watson who's really not much like Watson. (And a character called Gregson... who actually IS sort of like Gregson.) It's not just Watson's gender that's changed; there's really not much to recognize in Joan Watson of the John Watson character we know and love. Holmes is suitably arrogant and selfish, but he's not asexual, and his powers of deduction veer from simplistic to superhuman depending on what the script needs them to be. His final demonstration is quite a stretch even for him.

There are a few nice nods to the canon, but not the loving tributes of Moffat and Gatiss. This Holmes adaptation more pays lip service to the original characters than dotes on them, the way their show does. I'll still tune in and check it out, and see what kind of Holmes Miller makes, but my expectations will definitely be low. Like I say, it's not a bad procedural at all... it's just not Sherlock Holmes.

[Captain Tightpants]

I know I'm late to the party, but I literally just saw The Reichenbach Fall, and now the ending is going to annoy me for months. I don't buy into any of the fan theories suggested, like the use of a mask, Moriaty's body or a cadaver. All of them suggest foresight, and while Holmes probably had a general sense of where things were going, Moriaty's end-game only became clear to him on the roof. So he only had about ten-fifteen minutes to work out a solution. He clearly wanted Watson to see him jump, but not land, and I don't think Watson being struck by the rider was a coincidence. Other than that, I've got nothing.

Maddening.

[00Twelve]

Finally, Netflix got the Granada show back on instant watch!

[Single-O-Seven]

I know I'm late to the party, but I literally just saw The Reichenbach Fall, and now the ending is going to annoy me for months. I don't buy into any of the fan theories suggested, like the use of a mask, Moriaty's body or a cadaver. All of them suggest foresight, and while Holmes probably had a general sense of where things were going, Moriaty's end-game only became clear to him on the roof. So he only had about ten-fifteen minutes to work out a solution. He clearly wanted Watson to see him jump, but not land, and I don't think Watson being struck by the rider was a coincidence. Other than that, I've got nothing.

Maddening.

It is a good puzzler, isn't it? I believe either Moffat or Gatiss indicated there is a vital clue which fans have overlooked. The only thing that grabs my attention is the little girl who screamed when she saw Sherlock. This was never resolved and so may indicate a lookalike. However, that fails to address some of the other problems you've presented Captain. Unless, of course, there is truly more going on here and both Moriarty and Holmes arranged and faked the entire scheme for some greater reason but I can't quite make sense of that.

[marktmurphy]

I'll give it a go if it makes it this far, but it does sound pretty crap.

Apparently CBS approached Moffat and Gatiss to do a US version of Sherlock, but then realised that they didn't have to pay for the rights to Holmes so decided to have a bash themselves. Sounds dodgy, and the BBC guys are keeping a careful eye on them; if there's anything of Sherlock in there they'll leap on them.

Yeah, I'd read about that, but... I read the script for Elementary today, and Moffat and Gatiss have nothing to worry about. If ONLY Elementary were a bit more like their show! Sadly, it lacks all the devotion to the characters that makes Sherlock so great. It's actually not a bad mystery pilot at all... but it's not Sherlock Holmes. It's basically your average CBS procedural with a character called Sherlock Holmes who's SORT of like Sherlock Holmes, and a character called Watson who's really not much like Watson. (And a character called Gregson... who actually IS sort of like Gregson.) It's not just Watson's gender that's changed; there's really not much to recognize in Joan Watson of the John Watson character we know and love. Holmes is suitably arrogant and selfish, but he's not asexual, and his powers of deduction veer from simplistic to superhuman depending on what the script needs them to be. His final demonstration is quite a stretch even for him.

There are a few nice nods to the canon, but not the loving tributes of Moffat and Gatiss. This Holmes adaptation more pays lip service to the original characters than dotes on them, the way their show does. I'll still tune in and check it out, and see what kind of Holmes Miller makes, but my expectations will definitely be low. Like I say, it's not a bad procedural at all... it's just not Sherlock Holmes.

Fascinating stuff; thanks for posting! Pretty much what I imagined: once you've changed Watson to a woman you've shown that you're not all that interested in the dynamic in the books.
I suppose there's still time for rewrites, but nothing about this project interests me, really. Can't see Miller as Holmes, to be honest.

[graric]

It's interesting that the US series seems intent on bringing elements that the BBC series (and Moffat and Gattis) have argued wouldn't work in a modern context. The most obvious of course being the title: "Elementary," I've heard several Steven Moffat interviews where he talks about their desire to work the 'elementary, dear Watson' line into the show: but they are yet to find a way to make it work in a believable way in a modern context! (As they said, who says elementary any more?)

Another example, found in the plot description that came with the announcement of Lucy Liu as Watson, is how they are going down the route of "Holmes the drug addict." As Moffat and Gattis pointed out the drugs aspect was been exaggerated in many adaptions compared to its quite minimal role in Conan Doyle's novels. Which is why the change to a smoking addiction, in the BBC, makes more sense than making him an addict (in Victorian London Holmes use of a 'seven percent solution' would've been seen more like smoking is seen by us today, rather than how drugs are viewed by our society)

And the female Watson casting, not only reminiscent of previous American Holmes failures like "Sherlock Holmes Returns," reminds me somewhat of the rumours that when adapting the Lord Of The Rings they would make Sam female in order to avoid any talk of homo eroticism (thankfully Peter Jackson kept Sam male) but it undermines the core of the relationship between these two characters (which as the BBC series proved is what really matters) and makes the idea of a relationship between them all but guaranteed...

[Captain Tightpants]

It is a good puzzler, isn't it? I believe either Moffat or Gatiss indicated there is a vital clue which fans have overlooked. The only thing that grabs my attention is the little girl who screamed when she saw Sherlock. This was never resolved and so may indicate a lookalike. However, that fails to address some of the other problems you've presented Captain. Unless, of course, there is truly more going on here and both Moriarty and Holmes arranged and faked the entire scheme for some greater reason but I can't quite make sense of that.

I don't think the girl had anything to do with it. That was probably just Moriarty dressed up like Holmes taking advantage of her traumatic state.

It was Holmes who picked the meeting place, but his intention was to erase "Rich Brook" and restore Jim Moriaty. He was riding on the binary code being real, so it wasn't until Moriarty revealed that it was a fake that his end-game presented itself. Holmes had every intention of walking away from St. Bart's, but because Moriarty anticipated this, he only had about ten minutes to figure out a way to stage his own death. The idea that he used a mask or a cadaver supplied by Molly implies foresight, and I don't think he had enough time to arrange it.

I think the key is in the phone call he made to Watson. All throughout the series, Holmes never hestitated once. He never drew things out longer than he had to, and if he did draw things out, it was always for a reason. He obviously wanted Watson to be in a position where he could see Holmes fall, but not hit the ground, but I think there is a second reason for it - Holmes wanted Watson to stand still so that he could locate the shooter. Moriarty clearly indicated that there was a shooter in play, and based on the shootings of the other two hitmen, the shots always came from an elevated position. I think the shooter was somewhere in St. Bart's, and that Holmes put Watson in a very specific position so that the shooter was forced to reveal his location to Holmes. And I think that position was directly below Holmes, because the shooter never assembled his weapon until he knew Watson was at St. Bart's. When we see the cross-hairs pull away from Watson, we see him at a similar angle to Holmes looking down at him. I suspect Holmes drew out the conversation with Watson to give the shooter time to get into position and identify him. It relies on superhuman timing - a bit like the ending of THE BOURNE IDENTITY - but it is possible that Holmes dropped down to the shooter's window, somehow used his momentum to swing down into the building, and then haul the shooter out of the window.

As for why the body looked like Holmes, you said it yourself: the little girl recognised Holmes. Moriarty managed to plan for every contingency with enough reliability that he always showed up somewhere just ahead of Holmes - like at the reporter's apartment and the taxi ride. His plan is so incredibly complex that he would need to anticipate every outcome and then predict Holmes' response. I'm willing to bet that he planned around Holmes surviving the encounter on the roof, and that the plan may have involved Holmes shooting and killing Watson. Witnesses would see a Holmes look-alike leaving St. Bart's, with Moriarty relying the inconsistency of mass eyewitness reports to further cloud perceptions of Holmes. Moriarty intended to kill Holmes' three best friends, but oddly enough, he employed five assassins. Mycroft identified three of them to Watson, but one of the two that he only showed photographs of could have enough of a passing resemblance to Holmes to confuse witnesses.

[Jim]

Novel. However I've just assumed that the body on the ground is the dummy earlier swinging in the flat. How that explains the body falling I don't know but it sort of ties in with the killing of the "dummy" in The Empty House. Sort of. Well, ish.

Although probably not.

I suppose another explanation is that what Watson hears is one long voicemail message - a note - and Holmes is not actually talking to him "live" and it is indeed Moriarty's body that is pushed off the building. I suspect this isn't remotely plausible either if the two exchanged dialogue during the scene - can't remember now.

It's evidently meant to be a headscratcher and it will be entertaining to see how they explain it, as explain it they surely will. One suspects that the outcome lies in the twisting of the canon, something they have done so deftly so far, rather than in relying on ripping off the Bourne films - they can leave that to James Bond.

[Captain Tightpants]

The dummy falling from the roof might account for Holmes' awkward flailing while he fell, but it doesn't explain the blood on the pavement. Unless he filled the dummy with fake (or possibly real) blood that would spray everywhere when it hit the ground. And it wouldn't explain why Watson identified it as Holmes. He was hit by the cyclist, which might have concussed him a little and made it difficult for him to recognise Holmes, but there is no way Holmes could have orchestrated it - and any one of the other pedestrains could have easily spotted that it was a dummy. I think the dummy was just another Holmesian experiment, trying to prove an unrelated theory.

My alternative theory is that Holmes actually did hit the ground, but he staggered the jump. St Bart's is only three or four stories high, so I guess it is possible that he could have jumped down to a ledge or a parapet, breaking his fall enough that when he made the second jump, it would not have been fatal. I don't think he was declared dead at the scene - the overhead shot didn't have a sheet over his body on the gurney - and the final shot was only a bust shot, so it is plausible that the injuries he would have received in such a fall would be out of frame in the final shot.

[Jim]

Fairy nuff. Still, the explanation of the original resurrection in the stories is fundamentally nonsensical if very entertaining so I expect something equally pifflesome but enjoyable when they reveal it in due course. Not looking at it for literal truth and I suspect it won't stand up to much scrutiny but sod it.

[Captain Tightpants]

I think you'll find the difference is that Doyle originally had no intention of killing Holmes off. When he revived the character, he had to find a way to plausibly do it - and in order to do that, he had to find a loophole in Holmes' death. The writers of "Sherlock", however, have no such problem - they clearly intended for Holmes to survive the fall in the first place.

[marktmurphy]

It's interesting that the US series seems intent on bringing elements that the BBC series (and Moffat and Gattis) have argued wouldn't work in a modern context. The most obvious of course being the title: "Elementary," I've heard several Steven Moffat interviews where he talks about their desire to work the 'elementary, dear Watson' line into the show: but they are yet to find a way to make it work in a believable way in a modern context! (As they said, who says elementary any more?)

They could always take a leaf out of James Bond's book and use some sort of set-up involving a victim's digestive system: "Alimentary, my dear Felix"

[Jim]

I think you'll find the difference is that Doyle originally had no intention of killing Holmes off. When he revived the character, he had to find a way to plausibly do it - and in order to do that, he had to find a loophole in Holmes' death. The writers of "Sherlock", however, have no such problem - they clearly intended for Holmes to survive the fall in the first place.

Yes, noted and known, but it may be suitable homage to go down that route of utter implausibility anyway as a further lovely fun reference for this light entertainment.

[David Schofield]

Love all this "Conan Doyle never intended to revive Holmes", "intended to kill him off permanently", was fed up about writing about Holmes.

Bit like Fleming was intending to kill Bond off in FRWL, possibly YOLT for a second time.

Are we sure in either case, I mean 100% sure? Because there are far more final ways of killing a hero off than falling in to some water or getting a boot to the shins; I suspect that, say, a good old shot gun blast to the face might be a bit more final. But no, let the fella fall into some water, get a shooing. Sounds like both CD and IF were holding doors open, perhaps.

At least Moffat and Gatiss have been 100% honest. The BBC wouldb't kill THEIR golden goose, would they?

Call me a cynic by all means!

[Captain Tightpants]

I believe Doyle told his mother that he had every intention of killing Holmes off for good with "The Final Problem" so that he could concentrate on other, more-meaningful works, and possibly also because he intended for Moriarty to die in the process; as Moriarty was the world's foremost criminal and had the msot-dangerous crinimal mind in Europe, Doyle probably felt that there was nowhere to go from there, and no villain that he created could rival Moriarty.

He was later persuaded to revive the character given the reception to the events of "The Final Problem".

[David Schofield]

I believe Doyle told his mother that he had every intention of killing Holmes off for good with "The Final Problem" so that he could concentrate on other, more-meaningful works, and possibly also because he intended for Moriarty to die in the process; as Moriarty was the world's foremost criminal and had the msot-dangerous crinimal mind in Europe, Doyle probably felt that there was nowhere to go from there, and no villain that he created could rival Moriarty.

He was later persuaded to revive the character given the reception to the events of "The Final Problem".

Yes, I think we all heard versions of that, and of Fleming's apathy toward Bond around FRWL time and later on.

But it's the lack of conclusiveness in either demise that brings out the cynical side of my nature.

[graric]

I believe Doyle told his mother that he had every intention of killing Holmes off for good with "The Final Problem" so that he could concentrate on other, more-meaningful works, and possibly also because he intended for Moriarty to die in the process; as Moriarty was the world's foremost criminal and had the msot-dangerous crinimal mind in Europe, Doyle probably felt that there was nowhere to go from there, and no villain that he created could rival Moriarty.

He was later persuaded to revive the character given the reception to the events of "The Final Problem".

Yes, I think we all heard versions of that, and of Fleming's apathy toward Bond around FRWL time and later on.

But it's the lack of conclusiveness in either demise that brings out the cynical side of my nature.

It's appropriate that you mention From Russia With Love with The Final Problem, as Fleming was in some ways inspired by Conan Doyle in the way he killed Bond! (He said in letters that he intended to give Bond a more permanent death than Conan Doyle, not simply having there be a missing body) And Bond's death at least seems like it was intended to be a proper death (reading the end of From Russia With Love it does seem like there is no way out) So it is somewhat ironic that Fleming changed his mind faster than Conan Doyle! (Doyle took several years to write a new Holmes story, Bond returned the next year.)

I think with Fleming he did intend the death to be lasting, when he wrote it (the numerous complaints he had about struggling to write more Bond stories support this, particularly at the time of From Russia With Love when he felt he was out of ideas) he changed his mind, more likely than not, because a pilot for a tv series he was asked to write fell through and he found himself with a story perfectly suited to Bond (the basic story to Dr No)...I think author's like to use these backdoor deaths as a form of insuarance, they intend the death to be permanent when they write it but they like to know it is possible to change their minds if they ever want