The BBC series *Sherlock *premiered tonight on PBS Masterpiece Mystery. It will be repeated several times through this week, with a two more episodes to show on 31 Oct and 7 Nov. It’s a 21st century reimagining with Benedict Cumberbatch as Holmes, Martin Freeman as Dr. Watson, and Rupert Graves as Lestrade. Steven Moffat is one of the co-creators.
The first episode, “A Study in Pink,” was great.
I really enjoyed the first episode! I see that PBS will be airing two more episodes, is that all there was or was this a full length series in the UK?
As I understand it …three were all that were aired in the UK. I thought it was very entertaining.
Only three episodes for this first test block, but they’ve got a second bunch greenlit, which I imagine won’t be even in production until next year, and now will have to work around Martin Freeman’s Hobbit commitments.
I think they plan to air Sherlock Holmes next summer, as they aired the first series. Stephen Moffat is responsible for this, so they had to work out a deal that would allow him to fulfill his obligations to this and Doctor Who. As a result, DW will be a split series with the first half in the spring and the second half in the fall.
Uh, did I miss something? Watson was in one room, looking across a courtyard into another room, both with closed windows? And all he could see was Holmes and the cabbie just talking to each other? I mean, they weren’t fighting, the cabbie wasn’t aiming a gun at Holmes or any other threat that would be visible?
And so he shoots and kills the cabbie??
I believe we’re supposed to understand that he saw that Sherlock was about to take the pill.
I really enjoyed the first episode. I’ve been meaning to watch this forever, and just found time for the first one the other day. Sherlock had a very “Doctor” quality to him. It could easily have been an episode of Doctor Who.
Sherlock was holding the pill over his head, about to take it.
You could see Moffat’s writing in some of the dialog. “I’m not a psychopath. I’m a very high functioning sociopath.”
“Is it nice, not being me? It must be so relaxing!”
I haven’t read “A Study in Scarlet” recently enough to remember it, but did see The Princess Bride. I have my guess how the guy did the thing, repeatedly.
I could see similarities between Holmes and Moffat’s the Doctor.
It was a lot of fun, though Holmes was pretty slow to catch on that the cabby waiting for him was the killer. The cops and Watson were even dumber – “It’s at this address.” “There’s a cabby waiting for you.”
Oh, and there was no reason for Holmes to take the pill. He should just take it home and do a chemical analysis.
Otherwise, though, I liked it a lot.
Oh, what’s with the comment about Holmes not getting paid for his consulting? He certainly did in the canonical stories! Is Lestrade going out of pocket to save his job or something?
It’s been years since I read the original stories, but I recognized little details as coming from them. Like the bit where he figured out various things about Watson from the cell phone I recognized as based on a bit in the stories about a pocket watch.
Oh, there were other adapted bits, too. One I liked:
In the original, Lestrade assumes Rache = Rachel. Holmes scoffs at him and tells him it’s German for revenge.
In this one, the exact reversal. 
I really liked this episode and I am looking forward to see what they do with some of the other stories. My favorite part about this particular adaptation was the dark mood it conveyed. I remember being younger and being confused by a lot of the adaptations because they seemed significantly more cheery than the stories I had read.
“A Study in Scarlet” was markedly different from the show. The cabbie/murderer did have an aneurysm, but he wasn’t doing it for sport. He was seeking revenge against two specific people, and those were the only two people he killed. I believe there was no trick to the pills – one was poison and the other harmless.
The original story is also notable in its unflattering depiction of Brigham Young and the Mormons.
And in the original, the message (“Rache,” revenge) was scrawled by the murderer, not the victim (“Rachel,” a password).
IIRC, Holmes was never paid by Scotland Yard and many of the other cases he did pro bono, because he found them interesting or was sympathetic to the client. But in other cases, with rich clients, he was paid quite handsomely and was able to buy a estate in the country and retire to beekeeping. He also provided convert support for Watson’s medical practice.
Actually, when I think about it, I would hardly describe the original Sherlock as sociopathic. He often went to great lengths to help other, often at his own expense, on cases that he didn’t find interesting.
Was anyone else caught flatfooted by the Mycroft/Moriarty twist at the end?
I wasn’t entirely surprised.
I actually called it about midway through Mycroft and Watson’s conversation. Unfortunately, I was watching alone, so I have no witnesses.
My only complaint is that we, the audience, often got a conclusion long before Sherlock did. Especially that the cabby was behind it all, that was glaringly obvious and there’s no way Holmes could have missed it for so long. Likewise, how he could have failed to consider that Watson was the one who fired the shot that saved him? Who else could it have been?
Fortunately, they fix this problem for the next two episodes. The only time I got ahead of Holmes is when I had information that he did not possess.
Terrific little series.