Starting the thread in antcipation!
Please or to access all these features
Please
or
to access all these features
Related: Film discussion forum.
Telly addicts
Sherlock finale thread- WARNING SPOILERS
494 replies
Allthingsprettyreturns · 12/01/2014 19:21
OP posts:
winterkills ·
19/01/2014 19:04
Thanks for that Lois 
He is so utterly charming - had to laugh at the porridge clanger! if anyone's interested.
loisismyhero ·
18/01/2014 17:56
No he gave nothing away, and wasn't asked much, so they must have been warned beforehand not to. He was really charming though.
From what I have seen and heard he seems really nice. A friend of DS1's spotted him in town a few months ago, and being a 15 year old Sherlock geek started to stalk follow him. Andrew Scott copped on quite quickly, turned around and came back to DS1's friend and said hello; and chatted away happily for a few minutes before heading off about his business. Apparently he was "really sound"
winterkills ·
18/01/2014 14:29
RTE iplayer not working on our pc and I love Andrew Scott 
. Did they manage to get anything out of him re Sherlock?
winterkills ·
17/01/2014 11:33
"To say that SH is entirely unemotional, never gets angry, is never wrong etc is, in fact, completely untrue."
I didn't say any that he was 
. Never gets angry, never wrong etc wouldn't even be in the spirit of the original, obviously.
They do sound very defensive Rhubarb, I think they were expecting everyone to fall at their feet in admiration again. I only hope that the criticism will give them pause for thought when it comes to writing the next series.
THERhubarb ·
17/01/2014 10:53
Hettie they are speculating.
When they said that they had no problem with Holmes shooting CAM because that is the kind of cold, unemotional thing he would do they are being contradictory. On the one hand they want to show Holmes as an emotional man who makes mistakes and lets his emotions get in the way but on the other they want him to be so cold blooded as to shoot an unarmed man in the head.
It is their interpretation of Holmes and I'm sorry but I do think they are wrong.
It also irked me mightily when they said that those who criticise the humanisation of Holmes have obviously never read the books. That's just a patronising and wholly defensive reaction.
Tell me, what is the difference between this Sherlock and the American one in Elementary? No doubt Moffat and Gatiss would claim that theirs is more true to the books and certainly they have inserted plenty of nods to the stories and to Doyle himself as well as various film versions but their Sherlock is no different to the American version. It's an interpretation but for their part they have also thrown in plenty of speculation that has not come from or even been hinted in, the books.
Yes you had glimpses of Sherlock's loyalty for his friend, of his sense of moral justice, of his anger at criminality and his protective streak over his clients. It's this very emotion which means that he could not have shot an unarmed man in cold blood.
The stories may have had him breaking the law in withholding evidence, breaking and entering, etc but only once did he threaten to kill someone and that was when he thought Watson had been seriously hurt. Other times he fought in self defence and only once did he threaten someone with a riding crop when he was angry. Very different to shooting someone in the head.
They have speculated about his parents, about sibling rivalry, about his childhood, etc. None of that is in the books. Holmes remained an enigma with the reader knowing nothing of his background. They have changed all that and yes, you say it's about Sherlock himself rather than his skills now, but my argument is that this is the Sherlock that Gatiss and Moffat have created rather than the Sherlock that Doyle had in mind.
It's simply not true that they are sticking to the original character and I think even they would have to admit that now. They've created a new, modern character with similarities to the original Holmes but it's not quite the same character.
In the books, Holmes remains unattached for the majority of the time, demonstrating his deductive skills. Glimpses of his emotions are rare and even then, they don't cloud his judgement. Once or twice he misreads someone. His emotions are usually shown in his humour, his regard for Watson, his concern for his clients, etc. A couple of times his lack of emotions have led to him not acting quick enough to save a life (The Dancing Men is one such example and when he heard of the death he was became morose and despondant) because he was too wrapped in solving the puzzle and didn't pay enough attention to the urgency of the case. That is an example of how his cold nature sometimes worked against him. They could equally have focused on that side to Holmes but they have instead taken one small side to his character which is rarely shown, expanded upon it, speculated over it and developed a new character because of it.
The Holmes in the third series is different to the Holmes of the first series. They can say that is Watson's influence but again, that is speculation and has not come from the books. There is no evidence that Watson softened Holmes whatsoever.
But that's by the by. They are the writers so they are at liberty to do what they like with the character, despite what American heiresses say to the contrary, there is no copyright on the character of Holmes or the stories anymore.
I will carry on watching it and will perhaps enjoy it better if I accept that their Sherlock is not the same Sherlock I've come to know so well.
Don’t want to miss threads like this?
Weekly
Sign up to our weekly round up and get all the best threads sent straight to your inbox!
Log in to update your newsletter preferences.
You've subscribed!
Please create an account
To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.