Personally, I'd flip those two grades. I have a dim interest in the character interaction even if I think both characters are massively misnamed. This isn't a remake of Holmes at all; it's a remake of House as a detective show.
I bitched about that, but the more I think about those *ludicrous* murder plots, the more I smack my head. Both of them hinge on extremely abstruse plotting that could be undone entirely when any number of people notice that something's wrong.
I bitched about that, but the more I think about those *ludicrous* murder plots, the more I smack my head.
Yeah, they're pretty weak (this week less than last week, which was so attenuated it was laughable). But, if the show were called something else and not based on Sherlock Holmes, I'd probably be watching (ludicrous is probably a good adjective of many of the crimes I've watched, including 6 years of CSI) and the stories probably wouldn't bother me too much. Worse, they'd probably be written better, because the writers would be more focused on making the mysteries show off the detective's personality (for example, perhaps clues only an addict would notice?), which would probably have been better thought through.
Like you, I'm more interested in the characters at this time, but I feel like CBS is massively failing in that area, which isn't something I'm used to in my crime dramas. I'm not as bothered by the plot weaknesses because I'm used to rare and almost impossible scenarios (I did sit through 8 seasons of House), but I feel
( ... )
Worse, they'd probably be written better, because the writers would be more focused on making the mysteries show off the detective's personality (for example, perhaps clues only an addict would notice?)
I am noticing that for someone who's supposed to be so detail-oriented, this Holmes seems to be flailing about, with Watson finding half the important stuff. Monk would mop the floor with him!
Comments 3
I bitched about that, but the more I think about those *ludicrous* murder plots, the more I smack my head. Both of them hinge on extremely abstruse plotting that could be undone entirely when any number of people notice that something's wrong.
Reply
Yeah, they're pretty weak (this week less than last week, which was so attenuated it was laughable). But, if the show were called something else and not based on Sherlock Holmes, I'd probably be watching (ludicrous is probably a good adjective of many of the crimes I've watched, including 6 years of CSI) and the stories probably wouldn't bother me too much. Worse, they'd probably be written better, because the writers would be more focused on making the mysteries show off the detective's personality (for example, perhaps clues only an addict would notice?), which would probably have been better thought through.
Like you, I'm more interested in the characters at this time, but I feel like CBS is massively failing in that area, which isn't something I'm used to in my crime dramas. I'm not as bothered by the plot weaknesses because I'm used to rare and almost impossible scenarios (I did sit through 8 seasons of House), but I feel ( ... )
Reply
I am noticing that for someone who's supposed to be so detail-oriented, this Holmes seems to be flailing about, with Watson finding half the important stuff. Monk would mop the floor with him!
Reply
Leave a comment