Hmmm. There's the name, the Baker Street address, the landlady, Lestrade, Watson's backstory and diary, the quirky character traits (some of which were ripped off for "House") and the arch-enemy Moriarty. Pretty distinctively Holmes, I'd say.
On Nov 4, 1:17 pm, Dave Sikula <[email protected]> wrote: > I couldn't agree with you more, Kevin. I was very dubious, but enjoyed > the hell out of the first two episodes -- but the problem that occurs > to me is that, as good as the series is -- without the Victorian > trappings, Sherlock is just another in a line of present-day > detectives (House, Goren) who know everything and are superb > observers. If the characters were renamed Jones and Smith, I wouldn't > see any real differences and not a lot to connect them to Conan > Doyle's characters. I expect to keep watching and enjoying it, but > it's like transplanting Philip Marlowe from 1940s LA; it just doesn't > have the same impact. > > --Dave Sikula > > On Nov 4, 1:33 am, "Kevin M." <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 8:10 PM, David Bruggeman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > It aired on PBS in the DC area tonight as part of Masterpiece Mystery. > > > While it was just the first installment, "A Study in Pink" (loosely based > > > on > > > "A Study in Scarlet"), I was quite pleased by it, much like what Michael > > > had > > > to say when it aired on BBC in the summer. > > > >http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv/browse_thread/thread/fd03d1b... > > > > I tend to think Moffat and company managed to make most of the creative > > > transpositions that PGage was concerned about. There are a couple of > > > shifts > > > where secondary characters are concerned. One definitely works, involving > > > Scotland Yard (including Lestrade). With the other (which I can't mention > > > for spoiler reasons), it's a bit early to tell. > > > > I need to watch it again, as I suspect I missed some touches. But I won't > > > mind. > > > I broke down and splurged for the SD copy of the first episode, and > > was shocked at how much I enjoyed it. The characters were fully > > flushed out, not just stereotypes updated to a modern setting. The > > ways in which things were updated were not only interesting but fun > > (the "three patch problem" was great). Like PGage, I was reluctant to > > see a modern Sherlock, but they pulled it off in ways both familiar to > > those who love the characters and entertaining for fans of good TV. > > What they used to call "Charlie-vision" on "Numbers" is used sparingly > > yet effectively to show Sherlock's thought process when exposition > > would be awkward. And "Tim" as Dr. Watson was superb casting, though > > I'm concerned he may be tied up playing Bilbo for the next series of > > episodes. I say this as a non-fan of Steven Moffat's Dr. Who, the > > writing was terrific and the adaptation was outstanding. Good going to > > all involved. > > -- > > Kevin M. (RPCV)- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - -- TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
