"I'm not a psychopath, Anderson. Technically I'm a high-functioning sociopath. Do your research!"
Just watched the first part of Holmes, (on iPlayer for anyone on the UK)...so thought I'd write a bit about it. The following is some mildly spoilerific thoughts on the first episode.
HERE BE SPOILERS.
I think it's important to note that first and foremost, adaptations are...adaptations. While I often despise period literature (or whatever) being updated in efforts to make it "new" and "fresh" and apparently more appealing to today's audiences, there are some cases in which it actually works (provided you do it right).
I'd hope that one good thing to come out of it would be stripping back the stereotypes of Sherlock Holmes; he never really wore a deerstalker hat and he never uttered the words, "Elementary, my dear Watson". I'm torn between whether it would be okay for them to do that in the course of the next two episodes. On the one hand, I'd be delighted if they didn't - but on the other hand, I can certainly see it suiting Cumberbatch's portrayal of Holmes...which is maybe a testament to his acting.
It's almost obvious that the writers are fans of Holmes: from the start what we get is the essence of Holmes's character as a whole, one that's built up through the entire set of Conan-Doyle's books (or book, if you're reading just one). And Holmes's character is, of course, what makes the books (the mysteries are just incidental :P they happen so we can see what Holmes is like).
I think they got across the point of Holmes being a pompous twit quite well, as well as the appeal that Watson experiences in order for him to stay. Watson is fascinated by Holmes's process, and Holmes is almost salaciously obsessed with the murders. And while the episode stuck to Watson most of the time, there were a few brief forays into Holmes's experiences...the contents of the text message, going alone with the culprit, etc. We have an insight into Holmes's mind, which is not something we get in the majority of the books. Naturally, it would have been...nice...if they had stuck to the format of Watson's perspective, but I think one of my own criticisms of the literature is that we rarely get to figure out the mystery ourselves - due to not being privy to Holmes's thoughts - and this allows us to do that, to some extent.
In a few instances they do this in the form of text...which...I still haven't decided if I like or not. It's a bit in-your-face detective-y dramatic (see how good with adjectives I am) and Sherlock isn't CSI. But I suppose it serves to show us Holmes's [no doubt very rapid] mental notes without him having to talk all the time, or the entire episode would just have been him monologuing. There were also a few instances where we were not privy to his thoughts, where he got to shout random words exultantly while being incredulous that everyone else is so stupid as to have not got it yet, despite the fact that he just took some time to figure it out (which is far more akin to the books). And, like a good Holmes, he tells everyone that they're idiots and their brain functions pale in comparison to his.
It was a fun nod (or five) to the "are Holmes and Dr. Watson madly gay for each other?" question, but I think they stretched it to one too many jokes. Any Sherlock Holmes fans would be well aware of said speculation, and as for other viewers...well hammering a point home is just like assuming your audience is stupid, and that's insulting. The same can be said for one too many brief flashbacks that accompany explanations.
Um...what else? Oh yeah, the score was nice. It still had a sort of Victorian jauntiness to it while they were gallivanting about that echoed what you'd find in a period piece. I suppose it was nicely appropriate, though I don't think most of it was anything spectacular. But a couple of small bits were delightfully good in a noticeable way.
In conclusion, I love Martin Freeman's face, but for some reason I find myself inexplicably attracted to Benedict Cumberbatch's Holmes (at least, I'm assuming it's his Holmes, I've never found him attractive before)
EDIT: I rewatched today, and I can now hum the refrain from the score, so that's pretty successful. Also, Peter suggested the interesting idea in his LJ that if this 'verse is indeed our 'verse, and it appears Sherlock Holmes stories were never written (or they'd recognise the name and the obvious parallel), then what would the landscape of crime fiction and detective literature be like? And what of its effects?.
HERE BE SPOILERS.
I think it's important to note that first and foremost, adaptations are...adaptations. While I often despise period literature (or whatever) being updated in efforts to make it "new" and "fresh" and apparently more appealing to today's audiences, there are some cases in which it actually works (provided you do it right).
I'd hope that one good thing to come out of it would be stripping back the stereotypes of Sherlock Holmes; he never really wore a deerstalker hat and he never uttered the words, "Elementary, my dear Watson". I'm torn between whether it would be okay for them to do that in the course of the next two episodes. On the one hand, I'd be delighted if they didn't - but on the other hand, I can certainly see it suiting Cumberbatch's portrayal of Holmes...which is maybe a testament to his acting.
It's almost obvious that the writers are fans of Holmes: from the start what we get is the essence of Holmes's character as a whole, one that's built up through the entire set of Conan-Doyle's books (or book, if you're reading just one). And Holmes's character is, of course, what makes the books (the mysteries are just incidental :P they happen so we can see what Holmes is like).
I think they got across the point of Holmes being a pompous twit quite well, as well as the appeal that Watson experiences in order for him to stay. Watson is fascinated by Holmes's process, and Holmes is almost salaciously obsessed with the murders. And while the episode stuck to Watson most of the time, there were a few brief forays into Holmes's experiences...the contents of the text message, going alone with the culprit, etc. We have an insight into Holmes's mind, which is not something we get in the majority of the books. Naturally, it would have been...nice...if they had stuck to the format of Watson's perspective, but I think one of my own criticisms of the literature is that we rarely get to figure out the mystery ourselves - due to not being privy to Holmes's thoughts - and this allows us to do that, to some extent.
In a few instances they do this in the form of text...which...I still haven't decided if I like or not. It's a bit in-your-face detective-y dramatic (see how good with adjectives I am) and Sherlock isn't CSI. But I suppose it serves to show us Holmes's [no doubt very rapid] mental notes without him having to talk all the time, or the entire episode would just have been him monologuing. There were also a few instances where we were not privy to his thoughts, where he got to shout random words exultantly while being incredulous that everyone else is so stupid as to have not got it yet, despite the fact that he just took some time to figure it out (which is far more akin to the books). And, like a good Holmes, he tells everyone that they're idiots and their brain functions pale in comparison to his.
It was a fun nod (or five) to the "are Holmes and Dr. Watson madly gay for each other?" question, but I think they stretched it to one too many jokes. Any Sherlock Holmes fans would be well aware of said speculation, and as for other viewers...well hammering a point home is just like assuming your audience is stupid, and that's insulting. The same can be said for one too many brief flashbacks that accompany explanations.
Um...what else? Oh yeah, the score was nice. It still had a sort of Victorian jauntiness to it while they were gallivanting about that echoed what you'd find in a period piece. I suppose it was nicely appropriate, though I don't think most of it was anything spectacular. But a couple of small bits were delightfully good in a noticeable way.
In conclusion, I love Martin Freeman's face, but for some reason I find myself inexplicably attracted to Benedict Cumberbatch's Holmes (at least, I'm assuming it's his Holmes, I've never found him attractive before)
EDIT: I rewatched today, and I can now hum the refrain from the score, so that's pretty successful. Also, Peter suggested the interesting idea in his LJ that if this 'verse is indeed our 'verse, and it appears Sherlock Holmes stories were never written (or they'd recognise the name and the obvious parallel), then what would the landscape of crime fiction and detective literature be like? And what of its effects?.