dreading the wave of "WELL BUT HE'S NO BENEDICT CUMBERBATCH" comments, because, seriously, you guys, they're both no Jeremy Brett so I need you to focus
This'll probably sound odd, but: this made me feel a whole lot better, somehow. I'm a huge (HUGE) fan of the Guy Ritchie Sherlock Holmes films (put it this way: after twenty years of trying to get into the Conan Doyle stories, the first Ritchie film came along and then I finally, FINALLY dived into the original stories, and have since become a big fan of them) -- but I do not have any particular desire to watch the new BBC "Sherlock" series. And this seems to be perceived as a moral failing on my part by many people, because I keep getting informed that I HAVE to watch it, it is so very AWESOME, and while the latter part of that thought process may very well be true, it doesn't really have anything to do with the former, but I am frustrating multiple friends with my lack of interest all the same. But I don't know what to tell them, other than: I'm just not interested; _please_ stop, well, _nagging_ me.
So why does this reassure me? Well, just ... PERSPECTIVE, I guess. I've got my favorite interpretation of Holmes, and my friends have theirs -- but Brett's still THE guy, so let's just call it even, eh?
(... I totally know that's not at ALL what your point was; but this random interpretation on my part is cheering me up, so I hope you don't mind me having it. :D)
OH AND ALSO: I find it reassuring in another way, namely -- everybody always gushes about the Basil Rathbone version of HOlmes, and while I enjoy Rathbone well enough, Nigel Bruce's interpretation of Watson tends to send me up a wall. Watson is very nearly my favorite character in the stories, and seeing a filmed version of Watson in which he's turned into Stupid Watson drives me BANANAS. (This is *not* a slam against Bruce, who was of course just playing the character as written; rather, it's a slam against their insistence in often writing the poor doctor that way.) So seeing someone champion another version as the definitive one makes me sort of happy. ^___^
I actually took home for the holidays a collection of Jeremy Brett DVDs from the library and am about to pop my first one into the DVD player ("The Boscombe Valley Mystery" adaptation, I think, since I just finished reading that story a little while ago), and I am very excited to see this possibly-definitive-to-me-too version of Sherlock Holmes. (And, hopefully, a more intelligent Watson?)
Actually... that's exactly the way I feel. Well, maybe not exactly; I came to the stories through 8th grade English, where my teacher had us watch some of the Brett episodes, and so I loved both the books/stories and the show, and they're the closest to the teatime coziness of the stories (as opposed to saving the world 24/7). I like the Guy Ritchie movies a lot, but that may be more because I like portrayals of the Victorian era, no matter how, uh, "creative." I mean, the thing that made me the happiest in this new movie was that a bomber who had one scene was named "Ravache"--obviously after the French bomber Ravachol, who I'd coincidentally been researching. And, I'll be honest, I like fancy costumes and action scenes where things explode real good. So you give me a modern-day Sherlock Holmes and... I just kind of don't see the point? At least in terms of how I relate to it? I mean, "House" is basically a modern day Holmes but they don't SELL IT as "Sherlock Holmes," you know? (And I've still only seen a couple of episodes of THAT.) So if you're trying to get me to watch any version of Sherlock Holmes but it doesn't have what I consider to be an essential Victorian spirit/setting to it... I'm just not going to see much point to it? "Well, except that it's a good show!" Well, yes, but there are tons of good things I haven't gotten around to watching or reading. I'm about to pick up The Historian for the first time after getting the book for Christmas when it first came out. And I just finally got the BBC Jane Eyre miniseries on DVD to watch. BBC Sherlock can get in line like everything else. People have to find a way to manage their media consumption in an age when they're bombarded left and right with all kinds of wonderful things--there was an NPR piece to the effect of coming to grips with the idea that you will always be missing something, possibly most of everything, given the number of hours in a day. I'm happy for people who love BBC Sherlock, but I refuse to see it as a moral failing if I don't watch it.
People have to find a way to manage their media consumption in an age when they're bombarded left and right with all kinds of wonderful things
THIS. AAAHHHH SO MUCH THIS.
I simply do not have time to watch all the things that are out there that I gauge as being of possible interest to me. I essentially work two jobs, I travel out of town a fair bit, I live alone (which means all chores/duties/responsibilities of keeping up a living space fall 100% on me) -- I _do not have time_ for much casual viewing or reading. With my time for Stories so limited (I squeeze in most of my weekday reading during meals or in bed, and I watch maybe four or five hours of TV and movies a week), I want the stuff I read or watch to hopefully be stuff I really love. Because if it's something I only find mildly diverting, as opposed to something I fall at least a little bit in love with, I've just used up my outrageously-limited story time with stuff that only passes the time for me. Stories are really important to me -- they keep me going, sometimes; they _inspire_ me, as corny as that sounds -- so I'm not using them to pass the time. I'm using them to _recharge_, and I hate to waste that time on stuff that I don't _really_ have any interest in for sure. That's not to say I NEVER watch stuff to pass the time, because c'mon, everybody does that sometimes. When I've got some time off and/or am hanging with friends, and we dig out some bad B-movie to poke fun at or watch a movie with its RiffTrax, that's very much just casual viewing, there. Sure. But that's the exception to my media consumption these days, not the rule. Simply because I'm so bloody busy.
In the case of BBC Sherlock, you really hit the nail on the head for me. For all that Ritchie's Victorian world is a steampunk-ified, liberally interpreted world -- it IS still Victorian. And that's a huge part of what I dig about it. I love the steampunkified version of Victorian times (I love it quite a lot) -- but I want it to still be essentially _Victorian_, somewhere. The BBC Sherlock is not Victorian, and, while there is absolutely nothing wrong with the idea of it (it's actually pretty _clever_ an idea, putting Holmes and Watson in a modern-day setting), I am just not interested. I am _just_ not personally interested! If YOU are interested, that's awesome -- go forth and watch and enjoy. But I'm not. _And I don't have time to watch stuff just because it's "good"_. Because I have a Netflix account and every show in the history of ever is available on DVD, so I can either watch everything that everyone thinks I should watch, or do everything else in life. I just wish more people would SEE it that way, because I come out of conversations feeling _guilty_ for not putting BBC Sherlock or Dr. Horrible or Community on my to-watch list. And -- I'm not judging anybody for liking those shows! I am sure they are great! I just am choosing not to watch them because YOU CAN'T WATCH _EVERYTHING_, okay??
(:pant, pant:) ... thank you, thank you, sorry to rant. I feel better now, though. Think I needed to get that all off my chest. ;-) I think I'm going to start linking people to that NPR article, to boot ...
This'll probably sound odd, but: this made me feel a whole lot better, somehow. I'm a huge (HUGE) fan of the Guy Ritchie Sherlock Holmes films (put it this way: after twenty years of trying to get into the Conan Doyle stories, the first Ritchie film came along and then I finally, FINALLY dived into the original stories, and have since become a big fan of them) -- but I do not have any particular desire to watch the new BBC "Sherlock" series. And this seems to be perceived as a moral failing on my part by many people, because I keep getting informed that I HAVE to watch it, it is so very AWESOME, and while the latter part of that thought process may very well be true, it doesn't really have anything to do with the former, but I am frustrating multiple friends with my lack of interest all the same. But I don't know what to tell them, other than: I'm just not interested; _please_ stop, well, _nagging_ me.
So why does this reassure me? Well, just ... PERSPECTIVE, I guess. I've got my favorite interpretation of Holmes, and my friends have theirs -- but Brett's still THE guy, so let's just call it even, eh?
(... I totally know that's not at ALL what your point was; but this random interpretation on my part is cheering me up, so I hope you don't mind me having it. :D)
OH AND ALSO: I find it reassuring in another way, namely -- everybody always gushes about the Basil Rathbone version of HOlmes, and while I enjoy Rathbone well enough, Nigel Bruce's interpretation of Watson tends to send me up a wall. Watson is very nearly my favorite character in the stories, and seeing a filmed version of Watson in which he's turned into Stupid Watson drives me BANANAS. (This is *not* a slam against Bruce, who was of course just playing the character as written; rather, it's a slam against their insistence in often writing the poor doctor that way.) So seeing someone champion another version as the definitive one makes me sort of happy. ^___^
I actually took home for the holidays a collection of Jeremy Brett DVDs from the library and am about to pop my first one into the DVD player ("The Boscombe Valley Mystery" adaptation, I think, since I just finished reading that story a little while ago), and I am very excited to see this possibly-definitive-to-me-too version of Sherlock Holmes. (And, hopefully, a more intelligent Watson?)
Reply
I adored the Brett version of Holmes. I was very young when they first aired, and kind of impressionable. I think it was very probably love.
That said, I was pleasantly surprised by the BBC's new version.
Reply
Reply
THIS. AAAHHHH SO MUCH THIS.
I simply do not have time to watch all the things that are out there that I gauge as being of possible interest to me. I essentially work two jobs, I travel out of town a fair bit, I live alone (which means all chores/duties/responsibilities of keeping up a living space fall 100% on me) -- I _do not have time_ for much casual viewing or reading. With my time for Stories so limited (I squeeze in most of my weekday reading during meals or in bed, and I watch maybe four or five hours of TV and movies a week), I want the stuff I read or watch to hopefully be stuff I really love. Because if it's something I only find mildly diverting, as opposed to something I fall at least a little bit in love with, I've just used up my outrageously-limited story time with stuff that only passes the time for me. Stories are really important to me -- they keep me going, sometimes; they _inspire_ me, as corny as that sounds -- so I'm not using them to pass the time. I'm using them to _recharge_, and I hate to waste that time on stuff that I don't _really_ have any interest in for sure. That's not to say I NEVER watch stuff to pass the time, because c'mon, everybody does that sometimes. When I've got some time off and/or am hanging with friends, and we dig out some bad B-movie to poke fun at or watch a movie with its RiffTrax, that's very much just casual viewing, there. Sure. But that's the exception to my media consumption these days, not the rule. Simply because I'm so bloody busy.
In the case of BBC Sherlock, you really hit the nail on the head for me. For all that Ritchie's Victorian world is a steampunk-ified, liberally interpreted world -- it IS still Victorian. And that's a huge part of what I dig about it. I love the steampunkified version of Victorian times (I love it quite a lot) -- but I want it to still be essentially _Victorian_, somewhere. The BBC Sherlock is not Victorian, and, while there is absolutely nothing wrong with the idea of it (it's actually pretty _clever_ an idea, putting Holmes and Watson in a modern-day setting), I am just not interested. I am _just_ not personally interested! If YOU are interested, that's awesome -- go forth and watch and enjoy. But I'm not. _And I don't have time to watch stuff just because it's "good"_. Because I have a Netflix account and every show in the history of ever is available on DVD, so I can either watch everything that everyone thinks I should watch, or do everything else in life. I just wish more people would SEE it that way, because I come out of conversations feeling _guilty_ for not putting BBC Sherlock or Dr. Horrible or Community on my to-watch list. And -- I'm not judging anybody for liking those shows! I am sure they are great! I just am choosing not to watch them because YOU CAN'T WATCH _EVERYTHING_, okay??
(:pant, pant:) ... thank you, thank you, sorry to rant. I feel better now, though. Think I needed to get that all off my chest. ;-) I think I'm going to start linking people to that NPR article, to boot ...
Reply
Leave a comment