I really enjoyed the series so far. I was frustrated though by the cliffhanger. I was looking all over for the next show only to find there were only 3.
I really like the way they make use of the technology, especially the text messaging. Sherlock texting “Wrong” to all of the reports was pretty funny.
I’ve been reading a lot of Holmes lately, which stories did they adapt? And was there one for the third episode, it seems kind of hard to do without a phone. Also do they really have to do Hounds of Baskerville again? Everyone who’s done Sherlock has done this story so I know it by now. Good story but way overdone.
Oh! Thank you for setting me straight.
PBS, even though it has no commercials, often cuts down UK import programs for no reason that is apparent to me. When they aired Waking the Dead, whose episodes average (IIRC) 55 minutes in uncut form, they would still trim scenes in small ways. I only noticed this after watching one of the seasons on air after I had seen it first on DVD. But PBS is not nearly as bad as BBCAmerica, which trimmed the two ~hour-long episode pairs into a single block that aired for two hours with commercials, which meant they had to have edited out 20-30 minutes of material. No wonder I found the stories hard to follow.
They haven’t been adapting stories faithfully–although the series is replete with references to The Canon & we’re given a better Watson than in many adaptations. Sometimes parts of different ACD stories are combined with original elements; “A Study in Pink” used elements from “A Study in Scarlet.” Serious Holmesians will surely drop by to give further details.
I’m pretty sure “Hounds of Baskerville” will be sufficiently different from “The Hound of the Baskervilles” to capture my interest. One guest was in the original Being Human–playing a werewolf!
They do it to fit TV timeslot schedules: X episodes of even length. Except on premium/pay cable channels, most U.S. channels are pretty strict about show length. (Even feature films, which can run longer, are usually adjusted to fit multiples of 30 minutes.) On commercial TV, 30 or 60 minutes. Public TV is more flexible and will allow other multiples of 30 minutes.
I watched the third episode last night – gah, cliffhanger! I don’t know that I like Moriarty being such a young man, but I guess his youth makes him a peer of Sherlock’s, rather than an older mastermind tormenting his younger competition or something. Loved the scene with Sherlock sulking, though – when he harrumphed and threw himself on the couch with his back to John, I laughed out loud. Such a big baby.
The first episode is still my favorite. I loved the confrontation between John and Mycroft in the middle of the story, where we learn John is not as sedate as he appears and that he and Sherlock each fill a need the other has. That seemed to be less apparent in the other two episodes, which is a shame.
The first episode in the first series of Sherlock was actually shot last. In a sense, the characters are more well developed there. But the long wait for another series has made me appreciate what we have–even the much derided 2nd episode. And comedy bits do amuse–like pouty Sherlock on his couch!
The show runners apparently plan to show more character development for our heroes. Along with derring-do!
That’s very true. I started watching the commentary on the third episode last night, and got to the point where someone (Mark Gatiss?) asked Martin Freeman if he was planning on keeping his hair shorter like it was in the first episode or growing it longer like it was in the other two episodes – he answered shorter with a brief explanation, and a window of insight opened up for me. The characterizations in the first episode are the firm choices made by their actors after they’d been playing their characters for a while, as opposed to what it looks like: like they strayed slightly from the characterizations in the first episode as the series progressed.
That’s pretty neat. I’m going to have to watch the first episode again (and damn, right after I’ve cancelled Netflix streaming), so I can appreciate it more fully. The first meeting of Holmes and Watson and the way they appraise each other, as played by actors who have already experienced how their relationship develops…cool. I’ll say it again – I really love how Freeman played John in that episode: entirely capable and competent, vulnerable but brave, and you could believe a bit of a thrill-seeker under that even exterior. It’s easy to make Watson into a dunce or a kill-joy, but he made Watson awesome. And to think that this is the characterization we’re probably going to get next season…even more awesome!
And to think that this is the characterization we’re probably going to get next season…even more awesome!