No shxt Sherlock.

[TANGODANCER]

Sherlock Holmes, the legendary late Victorian tec with a Blackberry and a nicotine patch? NO, NO, NO. Invent a new character if you must, but ffs leave some things alone.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

Sherlock Holmes, the legendary late Victorian tec with a Blackberry and a nicotine patch? NO, NO, NO. Invent a new character if you must, but ffs leave some things alone.

Nicotine patch - nice touch for a coke addict who also dabbles in morphine...

[Verbal]

Looking forward to this immensely.

At least it should wipe that Guy Ritchie atrocity from my mind.

[TANGODANCER]

Looking forward to this immensely.
At least it should wipe that Guy Ritchie atrocity from my mind.

I refuse to watch it on principle. What next, Sam Spade drinking Perrier water? Modern tecs are fine, some great in fact a la Morse,etc, but Holmes is a period legend and this is just band-waggon jumping grand style. Just not done old chap.

[Worthy4England]

Sherlock Holmes, the legendary late Victorian tec with a Blackberry and a nicotine patch? NO, NO, NO. Invent a new character if you must, but ffs leave some things alone.

Has he taken up a Fender Strat instead of that bl**dy violin too?

And I can't see much of a use for Holmes' powers of deduction, what with psychological profiling, fingerprints, DNA testing, lie detectors etc. etc.

[TANGODANCER]

Sherlock Holmes, the legendary late Victorian tec with a Blackberry and a nicotine patch? NO, NO, NO. Invent a new character if you must, but ffs leave some things alone.

Has he taken up a Fender Strat instead of that bl**dy violin too? And I can't see much of a use for Holmes' powers of deduction, what with psychological profiling, fingerprints, DNA testing, lie detectors etc. etc.

Aye, he'll no doubt be driving a Ferarri with a built in computer, be a super-hacker, be dressed by Armani and fit tracker devices onto all his villains. Bring back Hansom cabs, deerstalkers, pipes and magnifying glasses. Bring back Holmes (and I don't mean Scotland Yard's mainframe either).

[ratbert]

Whilst I appreciate Tango's Holmesian traditionalism, may I point out that the Rathbone films he uses a photo of there were set in World War 2? Not many hansom cabs left by the 1940s.

[TANGODANCER]

Whilst I appreciate Tango's Holmesian traditionalism, may I point out that the Rathbone films he uses a photo of there were set in World War 2? Not many hansom cabs left by the 1940s.

Aye but their first two were set in Victoria's reign. Even in 1950 their was still horse drawn stuff about. I know, I was there.

[thebish]

I'll be watching..

I reckon if characters are strong enough and well-enough drawn, they can be divested of the mere incidentals of time (dress, technology, customs) and, if well written and cleverly handled, still be the stuff of good drama...

[TANGODANCER]

I'll be watching..

I reckon if characters are strong enough and well-enough drawn, they can be divested of the mere incidentals of time (dress, technology, customs) and, if well written and cleverly handled, still be the stuff of good drama...

Fair enough, so why not just call them Tristram and Tarquin then instead of the long-loved Holmes and Watson? Surely the modern technology age is capable of producing its own characters with what you have above? James Bond surfaced in 1953 and was a defined character of his time not a non-smoking computer buff of the millennium. The modern version is again just band-waggon jumping. Why is it needed?

[thebish]

I'll be watching..

I reckon if characters are strong enough and well-enough drawn, they can be divested of the mere incidentals of time (dress, technology, customs) and, if well written and cleverly handled, still be the stuff of good drama...

Fair enough, so why not just call them Tristram and Tarquin then instead of the long-loved Holmes and Watson? Surely the modern technology age is capable of producing its own characters with what you have above? James Bond surfaced in 1953 and was a defined character of his time not a non-smoking computer buff of the millennium. The modern version is again just band-waggon jumping. Why is it needed?

why was it "needed" in the first place? it's fiction - entertainment - and you don't have to watch it - but some people will.

[TANGODANCER]

I'll be watching..

I reckon if characters are strong enough and well-enough drawn, they can be divested of the mere incidentals of time (dress, technology, customs) and, if well written and cleverly handled, still be the stuff of good drama...

Fair enough, so why not just call them Tristram and Tarquin then instead of the long-loved Holmes and Watson? Surely the modern technology age is capable of producing its own characters with what you have above? James Bond surfaced in 1953 and was a defined character of his time not a non-smoking computer buff of the millennium. The modern version is again just band-waggon jumping. Why is it needed?

why was it "needed" in the first place? it's fiction - entertainment - and you don't have to watch it - but some people will.

I was talking about reproducing not creating as I think you know. Both Holmes and Bond were unique in their respective times, and I don't remember saying who would/should watch it, just that I won't on principle. Enjoy it do.

[thebish]

I'll be watching..

I reckon if characters are strong enough and well-enough drawn, they can be divested of the mere incidentals of time (dress, technology, customs) and, if well written and cleverly handled, still be the stuff of good drama...

Fair enough, so why not just call them Tristram and Tarquin then instead of the long-loved Holmes and Watson? Surely the modern technology age is capable of producing its own characters with what you have above? James Bond surfaced in 1953 and was a defined character of his time not a non-smoking computer buff of the millennium. The modern version is again just band-waggon jumping. Why is it needed?

why was it "needed" in the first place? it's fiction - entertainment - and you don't have to watch it - but some people will.

I was talking about reproducing not creating as I think you know. Both Holmes and Bond were unique in their respective times, and I don't remember saying who would/should watch it, just that I won't on principle. Enjoy it do.

I will Tango! but it was you who questioned me - not me who questioned you.

I think it responds to an oft-asked question about "giants" of literature - even real people from history - how would such a character look/fare/cope/function in a different era. I think it is an interesting question to ask - and I hope it will offer some engaging and entertaining answers...

there was a fairly recent drama on the BBC where a Jane Austen character finds an attic doorway into the 21st century and swaps places with another girl - it was very interesting and enjoyable - can't remember what it was called.

it did no damage to Austen or her characters - but merely asked the question that this series asks of Holmes and Watson.

ahh - I remember now - Lost in Austen it was called....

much the same kind of question - only the other way around - Ashes to Ashes...

[General Mannerheim]

i feel the same about those tw*ts in the new A-team movie!

[TANGODANCER]

I will Tango! but it was you who questioned me - not me who questioned you.
I think it responds to an oft-asked question about "giants" of literature - even real people from history - how would such a character look/fare/cope/function in a different era. I think it is an interesting question to ask - and I hope it will offer some engaging and entertaining answers...
there was a fairly recent drama on the BBC where a Jane Austen character finds an attic doorway into the 21st century and swaps places with another girl - it was very interesting and enjoyable - can't remember what it was called.
it did no damage to Austen or her characters - but merely asked the question that this series asks of Holmes and Watson.
ahh - I remember now - Lost in Austen it was called....
much the same kind of question - only the other way around - Ashes to Ashes...

We'll just have to agree to disagree. Don't see how that follows at all. That's more Narnia, Yankee in King Arthur's Court hole-in-time stuff pure fantasy stuff. This is taking Doyle's characters and stories and transposing them en-block to another century. Anyway, I know WTW's dad will agree with me at least.

[thebish]

I will Tango! but it was you who questioned me - not me who questioned you.
I think it responds to an oft-asked question about "giants" of literature - even real people from history - how would such a character look/fare/cope/function in a different era. I think it is an interesting question to ask - and I hope it will offer some engaging and entertaining answers...
there was a fairly recent drama on the BBC where a Jane Austen character finds an attic doorway into the 21st century and swaps places with another girl - it was very interesting and enjoyable - can't remember what it was called.
it did no damage to Austen or her characters - but merely asked the question that this series asks of Holmes and Watson.
ahh - I remember now - Lost in Austen it was called....
much the same kind of question - only the other way around - Ashes to Ashes...

We'll just have to agree to disagree. Don't see how that follows at all. That's more Narnia, Yankee in King Arthur's Court hole-in-time stuff pure fantasy stuff. This is taking Doyle's characters and stories and transposing them en-block to another century. Anyway, I know WTW's dad will agree with me at least.

I heard an interview on t'radio this morning with a bloke who has written 3 books about Sherlock Holmes and describes himself as an arch traditionalist - and said he knew he would HATE this series - and yet - after watching it, said he loved it because it has gone right back to the original stories and is very faithful to the original. Sorry I can't remember his name...

I think it is an interesting experiment to take away the transient things - clothing style, infrastructure, etc... - and see whether the characters that Doyle drew have anything left. If they were only defined by their clothes - then it will fail - if they were only defined by the kind of technology they used - then it will fail - but if, as I suspect, Doyle created much deeper multi-layered characters - then they will be recognisable and have soemthing to say/contribute in any era...

as I said - it's an age-old question - plenty come to mind, some of which work - some of which don't. The ones that work do a service to the "original" in showing that the characters have real depth and substance beyond clothing.

Jesus of Montreal comes to mind....

[seanworth]

I will Tango! but it was you who questioned me - not me who questioned you.
I think it responds to an oft-asked question about "giants" of literature - even real people from history - how would such a character look/fare/cope/function in a different era. I think it is an interesting question to ask - and I hope it will offer some engaging and entertaining answers...
there was a fairly recent drama on the BBC where a Jane Austen character finds an attic doorway into the 21st century and swaps places with another girl - it was very interesting and enjoyable - can't remember what it was called.
it did no damage to Austen or her characters - but merely asked the question that this series asks of Holmes and Watson.
ahh - I remember now - Lost in Austen it was called....
much the same kind of question - only the other way around - Ashes to Ashes...

We'll just have to agree to disagree. Don't see how that follows at all. That's more Narnia, Yankee in King Arthur's Court hole-in-time stuff pure fantasy stuff. This is taking Doyle's characters and stories and transposing them en-block to another century. Anyway, I know WTW's dad will agree with me at least.

I heard an interview on t'radio this morning with a bloke who has written 3 books about Sherlock Holmes and describes himself as an arch traditionalist - and said he knew he would HATE this series - and yet - after watching it, said he loved it because it has gone right back to the original stories and is very faithful to the original. Sorry I can't remember his name...

I think it is an interesting experiment to take away the transient things - clothing style, infrastructure, etc... - and see whether the characters that Doyle drew have anything left. If they were only defined by their clothes - then it will fail - if they were only defined by the kind of technology they used - then it will fail - but if, as I suspect, Doyle created much deeper multi-layered characters - then they will be recognisable and have soemthing to say/contribute in any era...

as I said - it's an age-old question - plenty come to mind, some of which work - some of which don't. The ones that work do a service to the "original" in showing that the characters have real depth and substance beyond clothing.

Jesus of Montreal comes to mind....

Completely forgotten that movie.

[Bruce Rioja]

Aye but their first two were set in Victoria's reign. Even in 1990 their was still horse drawn stuff about. I know, I was there.

Well, that's Farny for you.

[Verbal]

"Hey wtsn, how r u? gs wht? anuva mrdr OMG! fink its prof M, will let u no. tb hlmz xxx"

[TANGODANCER]

Aye but their first two were set in Victoria's reign. Even in 1990 their was still horse drawn stuff about. I know, I was there.

Well, that's Farny for you.

Halliwell, if you don't mind, please.

And I nearly missed what you did there you crafty bugger.