No shxt Sherlock.

[TANGODANCER]

[Worthy4England]

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...

I agree, to the extent that it could be good drama still - well acted, well directed etc. etc. but a little bit like the new Bond, it's just not Bond.

[TANGODANCER]

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...

Jesus of Montreal comes to mind....

But isn't that the whole point of them being Holmes and Watson, created by Doyle, a man who was born in mid-Victorian times and dead by 1930? He created them of his/their time with all that went with it. Holmes was a man with little or no technology to help him, (one of those new-fangled magnifying glass things) just a knowlege of science, an understanding of basic human traits and a high degree of intelligence. His methods and character were of an era far removed from Google and Wickywhacky and working only within what the world knew of anything.

I could probably enjoy the modern detective series that this undoubtedly is if I didn't keep getting images of somewhat disturbed turn of the nineteenth century guy in a frock coat, smoking jacket derby hat or whatever battling his own personal demons and sinking into opium addiction, playing his violin and puffing on his pipe as he uses just his mind to solve crimes.

"This is a two patch problem Watson" just doesn't do it for me. Some things are worth leaving alone, even in the millenium.
Elementary my dear Bish even though you will undoubtedly disagree.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

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.

I vaguely remember that not being very good?

I don't think I ever let myself accept the premise of the 'swap' though...

[thebish]

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...

Jesus of Montreal comes to mind....

But isn't that the whole point of them being Holmes and Watson, created by Doyle, a man who was born in mid-Victorian times and dead by 1930? He created them of his/their time with all that went with it. Holmes was a man with little or no technology to help him, (one of those new-fangled magnifying glass things) just a knowlege of science, an understanding of basic human traits and a high degree of intelligence.

he had all the technology of the age available to him, surely? It was never about technology - it was about deduction - and if it is done well this time - then it will still be about that.

also - it has martin freeman in it - and I like most of what he does.

anyway - I'll be watching and you won't - so I can tel you how wrong you turned out to be and you won't really be able to disagree!

(that's if I wasn't about to go away on my hols thus leaving this Forum a TheBish free zone for 2 whole blissful weeks! - enjoy it while you can! )

[TANGODANCER]

Well, have a nice holiday and enjoy Sheerlocks and What's on. You might even be pushing me to abandon my principles and watch the dam thing, just so we can argue on your return.

[thebish]

Well, have a nice holiday and enjoy Sheerlocks and What's on. You might even be pushing me to abandon my principles and watch the dam thing, just so we can argue on your return.

no Tango - don't do it - stick to your principles!!! actually - not going til tomorrow - so I might find some arguing time later

[TANGODANCER]

Well, have a nice holiday and enjoy Sheerlocks and What's on. You might even be pushing me to abandon my principles and watch the dam thing, just so we can argue on your return.

no Tango - don't do it - stick to your principles!!! actually - not going til tomorrow - so I might find some arguing time later

Well, since you're still here:

From the "creator" Steven Moffat says: "Conan Doyle's stories were never about frock coats and gas light; they're about brilliant detection, dreadful villains and blood-curdling crimes – and frankly, to hell with the crinoline. Other detectives have cases, Sherlock Holmes has adventures, and that's what matters."

Then why not think of a hero of your own? Nothing else need change for it to be succesful

Does this actually mean we're due for:

Robin Hood was never about suits of armour and camp-fires, fighting in the greenwood and history; it was about robbing the rich to pay the poor. It was about deception, greed and chivalry and the triumph of honour over vilainay, and to hell with the bows and arrows. Other heroes had aventures, Robin Hood has principles, and that's what matters.

I can't wait.

[Lord Kangana]

Robin Hoodie?

[TANGODANCER]

Robin Hoodie?

[Prufrock]

Yes, in short. If all you see is the pipe and the carriage then frankly you're missing the entire point. What hat is Holmes wearing in this 'traditional' view of yours? I bet it's the deerstalker, which is never mentioned in the books. He is even often depicted wearing the deerstalker in the city, which would never have happened? How is it this has escaped your critical eye?

Why haven't they invented a new hero? Because the entire point of the exercise is to see if the character can be successfully transferred to this era. It's an interesting idea to a lot of people, does the character stand up, do the Bell-inspired, rigorously logical and perceptive forensic thoughts still seem relevant in a modern setting. To many it's a great idea. The idea it shouldn't happen because it might offend the sensibilities of folk with some warped sense of tradition because it's new and different is, well, a very very minor concern.

Surely also, if I look back far enough in the records I will find you raving at House, the Hugh Laurie programme which makes Sherlock Holmes a modern day doctor! He's not even an investigator anymore

[TANGODANCER]

Yes, in short. If all you see is the pipe and the carriage then frankly you're missing the entire point. What hat is Holmes wearing in this 'traditional' view of yours? I bet it's the deerstalker, which is never mentioned in the books. He is even often depicted wearing the deerstalker in the city, which would never have happened? How is it this has escaped your critical eye?

if I didn't keep getting images of somewhat disturbed turn of the nineteenth century guy in a frock coat, smoking jacket, derby hat or whatever battling his own personal demons and sinking into opium addiction, playing his violin and puffing on his pipe as he uses just his mind to solve crimes.

We established long ago that Holmes did wear a deerstalker hat occasionally, in the way people wear ear-muffs and caps with ear-flaps...in winter.
Why haven't they invented a new hero? Because the entire point of the exercise is to see if the character can be successfully transferred to this era. It's an interesting idea to a lot of people, does the character stand up, do the Bell-inspired, rigorously logical and perceptive forensic thoughts still seem relevant in a modern setting. To many it's a great idea. The idea it shouldn't happen because it might offend the sensibilities of folk with some warped sense of tradition because it's new and different is, well, a very very minor concern. I'm sure it is to a twenty two year old.

Surely also, if I look back far enough in the records I will find you raving at House, the Hugh Laurie programme which makes Sherlock Holmes a modern day doctor! He's not even an investigator anymore

Doubt it since I never saw it, but do carry on assuming.

[Prufrock]

Yes, in short. If all you see is the pipe and the carriage then frankly you're missing the entire point. What hat is Holmes wearing in this 'traditional' view of yours? I bet it's the deerstalker, which is never mentioned in the books. He is even often depicted wearing the deerstalker in the city, which would never have happened? How is it this has escaped your critical eye?

if I didn't keep getting images of somewhat disturbed turn of the nineteenth century guy in a frock coat, smoking jacket, derby hat or whatever battling his own personal demons and sinking into opium addiction, playing his violin and puffing on his pipe as he uses just his mind to solve crimes.

We established long ago that Holmes did wear a deerstalker hat occasionally, in the way people wear ear-muffs and caps with ear-flaps...in winter.
Why haven't they invented a new hero? Because the entire point of the exercise is to see if the character can be successfully transferred to this era. It's an interesting idea to a lot of people, does the character stand up, do the Bell-inspired, rigorously logical and perceptive forensic thoughts still seem relevant in a modern setting. To many it's a great idea. The idea it shouldn't happen because it might offend the sensibilities of folk with some warped sense of tradition because it's new and different is, well, a very very minor concern. I'm sure it is to a twenty two year old.

Surely also, if I look back far enough in the records I will find you raving at House, the Hugh Laurie programme which makes Sherlock Holmes a modern day doctor! He's not even an investigator anymore

Doubt it since I never saw it, but do carry on assuming.

Who established he did wear a deerstalker? It's never mentioned in the books. There are only two references to a hat people guess must have been a deerstalker. That's a big leap to suddenly make it a key part of his 'look'. Why if tradition and sticking to Doyle's vision is so important do we never see much of Holmes the cocaine junkie? Why does he lose his introspective damaged side, and become a smart-arsed dandy with a stupid pipe? That Holmes is no more 'traditional' than this new one will be. All you mean by tradition is what your own idea of Holmes is. The most fundamental aspect of which seems bizarrely to be the time it is set, not his habits, his clothes, or his personality; not who, what, or why, but when. Seems odd.

[TANGODANCER]

Who established he did wear a deerstalker? It's never mentioned in the books. There are only two references to a hat people guess must have been a deerstalker. That's a big leap to suddenly make it a key part of his 'look'. Why if tradition and sticking to Doyle's vision is so important do we never see much of Holmes the cocaine junkie? Why does he lose his introspective damaged side, and become a smart-arsed dandy with a stupid pipe? That Holmes is no more 'traditional' than this new one will be. All you mean by tradition is what your own idea of Holmes is. The most fundamental aspect of which seems bizarrely to be the time it is set, not his habits, his clothes, or his personality; not who, what, or why, but when. Seems odd.

I have actually read most of the Holmes stories Pru. Have you? We also discussed the topic on here quite some time back (anybody remember?) and decided that an ear'flapped cap was in association with images drawn at the time, near enough to class as a deerstalker hat.

Anyway, I've just decided I got it all wrong. It's the same guy after all. He's just a hundred and forty or so years old and Conan Doyle was an absolute villain for writing about him so long ago.You see, my warped idea of tradition is leaving things alone that don't need any change. Holmes was a late Victorian character written about by a Victorian author, using Victorian times, manners, methods and every other apect of life back then. It was, after all, pure fiction from the past that our wonderful modern technological age sneers at, yet happily pillages for ideas. I will however give more credit to modernity and progress than you seem willing to give to history and tradition. Peace in the valley.

[Prufrock]

Who established he did wear a deerstalker? It's never mentioned in the books. There are only two references to a hat people guess must have been a deerstalker. That's a big leap to suddenly make it a key part of his 'look'. Why if tradition and sticking to Doyle's vision is so important do we never see much of Holmes the cocaine junkie? Why does he lose his introspective damaged side, and become a smart-arsed dandy with a stupid pipe? That Holmes is no more 'traditional' than this new one will be. All you mean by tradition is what your own idea of Holmes is. The most fundamental aspect of which seems bizarrely to be the time it is set, not his habits, his clothes, or his personality; not who, what, or why, but when. Seems odd.

I have actually read most of the Holmes stories Pru. Have you? We also discussed the topic on here quite some time back (anybody remember?) and decided that an ear'flapped cap was in association with images drawn at the time, near enough to class as a deerstalker hat.

Anyway, I've just decided I got it all wrong. It's the same guy after all. He's just a hundred and forty or so years old and Conan Doyle was an absolute villain for writing about him so long ago.You see, my warped idea of tradition is leaving things alone that don't need any change. Holmes was a late Victorian character written about by a Victorian author, using Victorian times, manners, methods and every other apect of life back then. It was, after all, pure fiction from the past that our wonderful modern technological age sneers at, yet happily pillages for ideas. I will however give more credit to modernity and progress than you seem willing to give to history and tradition. Peace in the valley.

No-one is sneering at anything. I have only read part of one of the books, but bizarrely I've read a lot of secondary source stuff (coz I'm a big fan of aforementioned House) and know from those secondary sources what many of the ideas behind the character were about. My point is you talk of tradition and then confuse the issue. The popular image of Holmes sees him with the deerstalker and pipe considered absolutely key to his 'look'. Whilst it is highly probable the hat referred to in certain stories was a dderstalker, it clearly wasn't important enough to Doyle's idea of Holmes for him to ever even mention it by name. Nor was a pipe his constant companion. I do know however he took a lot of cocaine, legal at the time. If you are all for traditionalism, the films, and TV shows, that omit his cocaine use, that change his character from introspective and troubled, into a sharp tongued smart-arse are also crimes against tradition?

In both cases the people in charge of the show have decided certain things Doyle envisaged were no longer relevant. Omitting his cocaine habit in a society that no longer tolerated it is exactly the same kind of change, yet you seem quiet on the condemnation front? It's a TV show, and one that many people seem to think is an interesting idea worth exploring. You don't have to watch it, and them making it doesn't take anything away from anyone's enjoyment of the originals, so why the problem? If it bothers you that much you could become one of those crashing bores who refer to stuff as being 'non-canonical' WTF ?!

[Worthy4England]

Enjoyed it, but it wasn't quite Holmes (for me).

Whilst I don't think a deerstalker is necessarily required (don't think Jeremy Brett wears one that I've seen), nor does he smoke a pipe that I recall, it's set in the approximately the correct time-frame for Holmes to be a detective. I can live with these omissions, but I just don't see Holmes as a 21st Century sleuth. There's no real need to try and make him so.

[TANGODANCER]

If it bothers you that much you could become one of those crashing bores who refer to stuff as being 'non-canonical' WTF ?!

What a shame. I never had you down as using insult over a difference of opinions. It's all about someone who never actually existed after all.

[thebish]

It was, after all, pure fiction from the past that our wonderful modern technological age sneers at,

In what way has "our wonderful technological age" ever "sneered" at Doyle's fiction?

I have no idea what this means.

perhaps an example would help?


anyway - I watched it - and enjoyed it enormously - I usually never stay awake during sunday eve television - tonight I did - result! My kids enjoyed it too - maybe they are now mote likely than they were before to pick up a conan doyle book - who knows?

I also very much enjoyed the piece on Ayrton Senna on Top Gear. (though why they had to have his 1990s car driven by a 21st century racing Driver, I don't know - utterly sacriligious! )

[Prufrock]

If it bothers you that much you could become one of those crashing bores who refer to stuff as being 'non-canonical' WTF ?!

What a shame. I never had you down as using insult over a difference of opinions. It's all about someone who never actually existed after all.

Where's the insult? It was a light hearted comment about the folk who really do get over-zealous about this sort of thing. The type who refuse to call the lead character in 'Never say Never Again' James Bond, the people who use the phrase 'non-canonical', and care about it. The ones in short who take it far too seriously. They are who I would call crashing bores. It wasn't aimed at you yourself, as despite being wrong (:D) you haven't started talking about 'boycotts' and 'travesties'. You are allowed to not like it!

[TANGODANCER]

It was, after all, pure fiction from the past that our wonderful modern technological age sneers at,

In what way has "our wonderful technological age" ever "sneered" at Doyle's fiction? I have no idea what this means.
perhaps an example would help?

Perhaps "sneers" was over-strong, I'll back-track on that, and I didn't specifically mention Doyle so much as fiction, did I? Did you bother to read the rest? It's all about personal opinion in the long run anyway. Not really worth dusting off the pistols about.