Which Holmes Wins?

After seeing Benedict Cumberbatch as the new modern day Sherlock, does anyone feel that Holmes ought to be left in the times Conan Doyle had meant for him to live in? The gas lamps, the Hansom cabs, the fog and shadowy characters of Victorian London where he is so well suited to the original character?

I have not seen the version you've mentioned, but I feel that some things need to be left as they are, to stay faithful to the creator/author's original intent.

2> Don't let that perfectly reasonable view put you off seeing the Cumberbatch mini-series if it comes your way - they are great fun.

the rich gaslit settings and social strata of 19th century London are a big part of the allure of the series, undoubtedly. however that is not the real meat of the canon, imo.

i really like the new 'Sherlock' series (although i liked the first 3 epidodes better than these past ones). i think they brought him into the 21st century rather well, hitting all the necessary points without becoming overly cliche'.
the new movies (Downey Jr) are set in Victorian times but still manage to miss the mark completely, so the setting isn't everything.

give me a strong Holmes and i don't care where he is.

(4) Jeremy Brett...

What is the point of setting the series today and just rehashing the origial stories set in Victorian/Edwardian times. Furthermore bearing in mind the number of original stories and in how few of them Moriarty appears what a lack of imagination it is to resurrect him in two series with only six programmes.They should be left as they were originally written.

6> Tsk! Tsk! A fundamentalist. Open your mind, there is much to enjoy ;-)

Your point about Moriarty is interesting, but I would be surprised if the name of the Napoleon of Crime isn't as well known as those of Holmes and Watson, despite his few appearances.

They can write 'updated' Holmes stories if they like, but they can't make me read them.

It's like remaking classic movies again and again: let it lie, think of something original instead of copying someone else's characters.

I was surprised by how much I liked Sherlock (I've only seen the first season so far), as on paper the idea looked like I should absolutely hate it. But it worked instead very much like I appreciate some jazz variations or transcriptions of classical pieces I love.

The Victorian setting is clearly less crucial, to my enjoyment at least, than the essentials of Holmes' character and the dynamic of his relationship with Watson and other recurrent figures. For that reason the movie with Downey and Law was so utterly disappointing--there the adapters exploded pretty much everything essential about the characters, and yes, the problems probably began with the casting. (I haven't seen the second movie but I gather it's in the same vein as the first.)

I doubt we'll ever see the end to the "Victorian" adaptations, though.

I usually consider myself a Holmes "purist" in that I tend to dislike the myriad of pastiches written about the character, but not for the reasons people usually cite. I don't think it is necessary that he be forever consigned to a gaslit London, and Laurie King proved he can even get along with women. No, one of my biggest complaints about 99.999% of the people who write Sherlock Holmes pastiche stories is that they insist on making him likeable. He's not--he's arrogant and unashamedly ignorant of stuff that doesn't fall within his particular interests. He flirts with addiction. He likes to show off. He's vain, with all the assurance of someone who knows he is justified in his own personal assessment. Frustratingly, he is also almost always right and is happy to tell you so. He's not a nice guy, at all, as stories that try to rescue his personality end up taking all the teeth out of the character.

The BBC series actually did a phenomenal re-envisioning of Holmes that managed to preserve everything that was "Holmesian" about him--right down to his ambiguous sexuality--in a completely plausible modern context.

People think, with characters Sherlock Holmes, that the thing that drives the story forward is the whodunnit aspect of the plot. But that's not really the case. You may or may not figure out the trick that solves the puzzle, but the real tension in those stories is the way such characters bulldoze through all the little fictions and social niceties we build around ourselves to live with ourselves and each other. What House's friend Wilson calls "the social contract" on the television show House, MD. And the resulting explosions and damage that occurs when Holmes exposes all the petty defensive lies in order to get at the real truth. Sure, the patient gets cured, but they leave a lot of collateral damage in their wake.

The first episode of the BBC series, "Study in Pink" exploited this tension to fantastic effect: Watson, looking at a dead woman lying in the room feels sad for her. The inspector feels weary. The loathsome forensics guy sees only the most obvious evidence ("Rache") and assumes the most face value explanation ("She was writing "revenge" in German")

But Holmes looks at the scene and is not distracted by either the woman's humanity or the expectations of the people in the room (or for that matter, the color of her dress, which he realizes is telling them something). And because he's not trying to impress anyone, he ends up impressing (or making an impression on) everyone. Fittingly enough, it is Shelock Holmes, the freak, the sociopath, who susses out the dead woman's motivations and intentions. Because he never loses sight of the fact that what is important isn't that she is dead, but what she was trying to do when she died. That's his job and he doesn't forget it.

I didn't like the second season as much, mostly because the story lines were a mishmash and I thought the writers were trying to make Sherlock more likable, more "normal." Pretty pretty cinematography though.

(11) Very good analysis.

Which television series, however, are you referring to?

The recent BBC series featuring Cumberbatch and Freeman, fuzzi. Sorry, I thought that was clear in the context.

Haven't heard of it, thanks for the clarification! :)

You haven't heard of the BBC series Sherlock?

Nope.

Of course now over here in the US they're trying to do an American modern version of Sherlock after the Cumerbatch BBC version was so successful.

It features Johnny Lee Miller as Holmes and Lucy Liu as Watson.

Now that Cumberbatch and Freeman are both in the Hobbit as 'Smaug' and 'Bilbo' respectively the Sherlock Holmes / Hobbit crossover Fan Fiction has started to appear.

I wish they would just bury Elementary. Hollywood can never wait to jump on the bandwagon and ruin excellent novels and characters for pots of money.

17> Interesting choice of Jonny Lee Miller to play Holmes coming on the heels of Danny Boyle's hit production of Frankenstein at London's National Theatre in which Cumberbatch and Miller alternated the roles of the Creature and Frankenstein very successfully.

>18 HolmesGirl221b:
You saw a few episodes and decided you don't like it or you dislike it on general principle?

> 19 I'm enjoying Jonny Lee Miller as Holmes, it's one of the bigger selling points for me in the show right now.

I thought I would HATE the BBC series Sherlock, but I LOVED it. I'm a big fan of Jeremy Brett and couldn't imagine anyone doing as good a job. Until I watched Cumberbatch and Freeman. I was also pleasantly surprised by the humor. The scenes where Sherlock is behaving very badly are usually the funniest.

It is indeed a modern take on Sherlock Holmes, and I thought the creators were taking great license with Doyle's creation but, after re-reading many of the original works, I realize they were quite faithful. For instance, Holmes really doesn't know that the earth revolves around the sun in A Study in Scarlet.

I find the updated version does nothing to lessen my appreciation of the originals. Instead it is an interesting , and addictive, addition.

Oh how original. A criminologist/detective with an assistant.There obviously is nothing at all like it on TV. Not CSI not Body of Proof not Castle- need I go on.Just another example of jumping on the bandwaggon with a catchy title and no original thought.

The canonical Sherlock Holmes doesn't just solve mysteries, he has adventures and depending on which versions of the classic stories you have, chances are most of the titles are proceeded wit the words 'The Adventures of ..' but my point is, they are not limited to who whodunnits.

They are adventurous, complex stories which have not only mysteries, but show aspects of society. class and the fascinating corners of human nature.
Elementary wasn't very adventurous or illuminating to me. It isn't bad, but not good enough. Holmes is going through a drug rehabilitation programme in New York city on the orders of his father. Something 'happened' to him in London and now he's in America where Dr Watson is his sober companion, she is also a former surgeon who we later learned lost a patient due to malpractice. She doesn't show any ambition for being a writer or chronicling Holmes 'adventures' she just has a job to do.

So first of all Holmes is showing off his intellectual 'prowess' a scene where Watson comes into his apartment with a hooker or whatever leaving (very un Holmes) and a shirtless hunk is standing in the middle of a bunch of televisions. He recites a passage abut being in love and then un pauses a TV and the exact same speech plays from a soap opera, Impressed by his ability to memorise TV shows? Naaah.

So he whisks Watson to a crime scene where the police let him check out the murder details, and this is explained away by an NYC cop saying he used to work with Holmes when he was stationed in London in a counter terrorism unit. We are also told Holmes mostly worked on 'homicides'. Wrong.

But each to their own. I'm sure many fans would watch anything with the name Holmes in it. I just don't like the way CBS have bastardised a great character like Holmes with crap adaptations and writing just for the sake of drawing in viewers to bump up ratings.

Lucy Liu makes a great Watson. The writing for Elementary is excellent, Holmes style investigations and deductions, but completely modern situations. No cutesy retelling of old tales like on BBC's Sherlock.