Page 2 • Sherlock (Moffat/Gatiss) • Non-Gaming • TV • Eurogamer.net

gamingdave 25 Jul 2010 22:49:45 5,087 posts
Seen 3 days ago
Registered 17 years ago

Worked fine in a modern setting, and some really good setups. Love detectives though more of a traditional man, with Columbo as my all time favorite.

Not been a fan of most of the more modern ones, with an over reliance on crazy science, and apart from Monk, they have all left me cold. This was very enjoyable though, well paced and acted, and looking forward to seeing more.

_Price_ 25 Jul 2010 22:53:12 3,072 posts
Seen 1 year ago
Registered 15 years ago

Yep; good fun, a decent, witty script and actors who knew what they were about.

Holme's reasoning still doesn't quite work without the odd leap of faith / ignorance of holes, but that's all part of the mile-a-minute deductions.

Deleted user 25 July 2010 22:55:53

Slightly disappointed there are only 3 episodes of this? I assume they are all hour and a half 'specials' though

HiddenAway 25 Jul 2010 22:56:30 15,147 posts
Seen 3 days ago
Registered 15 years ago

Enjoyed it a lot.

All I have to say really

Nostrus 25 Jul 2010 23:15:39 376 posts
Seen 1 year ago
Registered 14 years ago

Yes, hour and a half 'specials'. It could be them sounding out for a mini-series of some description, although due consideration would need to be given to ensure that the plots do not slip into the mundane.

c.s.i. 25 Jul 2010 23:16:46 30 posts
Seen 4 days ago
Registered 15 years ago

I thought it was great! But, yeah, only 3 episodes... :-(

Gambit1977 25 Jul 2010 23:45:21 10,398 posts
Seen 1 year ago
Registered 14 years ago

gamingdave wrote:
Worked fine in a modern setting, and some really good setups. Love detectives though more of a traditional man, with Columbo as my all time favorite.

Not been a fan of most of the more modern ones, with an over reliance on crazy science, and apart from Monk, they have all left me cold. This was very enjoyable though, well paced and acted, and looking forward to seeing more.

Columbo and his bong eye

classic!
I've caught monk once or twice without really watching, is it worth a look then?

gamingdave 26 Jul 2010 00:13:28 5,087 posts
Seen 3 days ago
Registered 17 years ago

Obviously Columbo is the best, but Monk is classic who-dunnit. Doesn't rely on fancy science, and sticks to the old school formula of simply following the clues. Monk certainly has a lot of Holmes within it, though its not a clone. His OCD makes for some interesting situations, but IMO doesn't take the piss, and works really well as trait.

Working through season 5 at the moment (8 in total) and it really is a very good. There is an ongoing story and good character development as it progresses, so best to start at the start, but each most of the episodes would work on their own.

Tiger_Walts 26 Jul 2010 02:08:00 16,674 posts
Seen 4 years ago
Registered 19 years ago

"A three patch problem" made me smile. The graphical overlays were used sparingly and efficiently enough to not be intrusive, although one or two weren't really needed.

As for how the murderer always won, it's pretty much the realms of game theory. The classic example is whereby two players are given the option to either share a prize or take it all for themselves, but if both choose the greedy option then they both lose. The game here is different but the thought processes behind making a choice is related. They'll try to understand their opponent's reasoning logic, at this point in game theory they chose the best response and it usually ends there. The killer's response in this case however allows him to influence that decision by undermining or strengthening their opponent's resolve by talking to them. He must be careful though, he must not arouse suspicion in his opponent that this is his true intent, unless he wants the opponent to believe that he is being deceitful as a trap. A master player would begin this cycle of construction and destruction before even the actual game is played, pre-programming his opponent into approaching the game how he wants them to. The murderer compared it to chess, he's wrong, a far far better example is poker.

Mobile phones seemed to be a a central theme too. They take centre stage right from when Watson first meets Holmes as Watson's phone serves as substitute for the pocket watch that is used in the deduction scene from the original works that this initial encounter is based on. It's the perfect modern allegory and with modern society relying on them so much theses days it's interesting to see Sherlock, Mycroft and even the villain either shun them or only using them as a means to manipulate others. You'll often see many characters use their own mobile devices very often and in on particular case, near constantly.

Interesting to note is that of those three it's only Sherlock who actually carries one himself (the murderer only unwittingly being in possesion) and in the end it is Sherlock who is manipulated into playing the final game his weakness in needing to know mirrored by even a small reliance on cellular communication. With many people digesting a deluge of text, Twitter, Facebook and email via their devices it takes just one SMS to snare Sherlock. The answer to this problem is of course going to be Watson, but I'm not sure quite how, but I can't see him ending up like Mycroft's aide or Lestrade's sergeant who compensate for their superior's powers with equally ferverous mobile use.

Deleted user 26 July 2010 08:26:39

Martin Freeman and Benedict Cumberbatch were good. Gatiss was garbage.

StarchildHypocrethes 26 Jul 2010 09:07:41 33,974 posts
Seen 2 days ago
Registered 17 years ago

I find myself feeling very surprised.

a) I actually put aside my anger and watched it

b) It was actually pretty good.

I am so emotionally confused right now.

chopsen 26 Jul 2010 09:15:12 21,958 posts
Seen 15 hours ago
Registered 16 years ago

Yeah, it was good. What kind of name is "Benedict Cumberbatch" anyway?

Gatiss was ok, his character and Sherlock are completely OTT but it seems to work. I had more of a problem with the black female policewoman who warned Freeman and that greasy centre-parting forensic guy who hates Sherlock - they both sounded very wooden and unconvincing in their delivery.

But yeah, top stuff. I'm happy that there are only 4 or whatever if that means they're all this good. The first new drama by BBC which hasn't been painful to watch for years.

Blaketown 26 Jul 2010 10:19:15 5,658 posts
Seen 2 weeks ago
Registered 14 years ago

I liked it, but turned to my wife and said "Taxi driver" as soon as he started talking about them being taken from crowded streets.

This made the next half hour of the program really annoying as it couldn't have been more obvious that it was a taxi driver and yet the "brilliant" Sherlock Holmes missed a taxi stopping in the window behind them while they were staking out the address, then didn't look at the taxi driver when they chased a second cab through the streets (it hadn't even occurred to me that it might be a passenger as that would be really stupid, you know witness wise) and then let him sit outside the flat for ages (first while they waited for the website to load, and then while a montage reminded the obviously stupid audience what had happen over the last 45 minutes).

Liked the characters and dialogue though, but the pivotal deduction was handled laughably badly.

Deleted user 26 July 2010 13:59:34

Holmes often gets things wrong in the books. He isn't infallible.

Absolutely terrific show. Thoroughly entertaining. Great cast, brilliant performances. I'm a massive fan of Holmes and also the Jeremy Brett portrayal, but this hit all the right buttons. Marvellous. More please.

Wouldn't Cumberbatch make a brilliant Master to Smith's Doctor?

RyanDS 26 Jul 2010 14:01:52 14,073 posts
Seen 24 hours ago
Registered 13 years ago

K-Project wrote:
Holmes often gets things wrong in the books. He isn't infallible.

?

Aye, one of the things I love about the books is you never know if he will succeed or not. Half the time the murder has been committed and the perpetrator fled before Holmes discovers who it was, and by then it's too late.

HiddenAway 26 Jul 2010 14:15:23 15,147 posts
Seen 3 days ago
Registered 15 years ago

Unofficial overnight figures show a success for Sherlock

President_Weasel 26 Jul 2010 17:21:27 12,355 posts
Seen 2 weeks ago
Registered 17 years ago

Just watched this on the old iplayer; I was afraid it might be a travesty, but I found myself really enjoying it. Seemed to me that the writers captured the spirit of Holmes and Watson rather well, although admittedly it's been a long time since I read a couple of the books so the Jeremy Brett Holmes is probably my strongest reference. I thought both the leads were excellent, the guy playing Lestrade did a good job with what is a terribly limiting role ("be baffled, call Holmes, be astounded" is basically what Lestrade does), and Gatiss... was odd. Not terrible, but a bit of a jarring note; I think they could have found a handful of actors who could have done a smoother, more subtly menacing and intelligent Mycroft without breaking the bank.

If I was the King of Television, I would definitely order my minions to make more of these.

iokthemonkey 26 Jul 2010 18:05:10 4,662 posts
Seen 9 years ago
Registered 13 years ago

I'm a big Holmes fan and I wasn't sure how a modern take would work (especially given how good the Granada/Brett Holmes stories were) but was very happy with the outcome. It was a superb bit of modernisation, IMO, with the same kind of energy Moffat's Doctor Who has - respectful to the past but updated enough to make it relevant and fresh.

I liked the way they took elements of Holmes ''lore'' and twisted them around - the Three Patch Problem was a great line. I wonder if he's going to shoot ER into the wall next week...

JediMasterMalik 26 Jul 2010 18:23:37 11,820 posts
Seen 2 years ago
Registered 16 years ago

I'll echo the comments above. Really enjoyed it myself, thought the acting was excellent and loved the on screen effects.

HiddenAway 26 Jul 2010 18:23:46 15,147 posts
Seen 3 days ago
Registered 15 years ago

iokthemonkey wrote:
I liked the way they took elements of Holmes ''lore'' and twisted them around - the Three Patch Problem was a great line. I wonder if he's going to shoot ER into the wall next week...

I found myself scratching my head at that one. Admittedly, I've never read the books so maybe I've missed something (apart from the fact that 3 patches will make you far too relaxed

)

iokthemonkey 26 Jul 2010 18:25:17 4,662 posts
Seen 9 years ago
Registered 13 years ago

HiddenAway wrote:

iokthemonkey wrote:
I liked the way they took elements of Holmes ''lore'' and twisted them around - the Three Patch Problem was a great line. I wonder if he's going to shoot ER into the wall next week...

I found myself scratching my head at that one. Admittedly, I've never read the books so maybe I've missed something (apart from the fact that 3 patches will make you far too relaxed )

Holmes once described something he needed to think about for a while as a ''three pipe problem'' (i.e. it'd take the time of three pipes' worth of tobacco before he came to a solution.)

HiddenAway 26 Jul 2010 18:30:07 15,147 posts
Seen 3 days ago
Registered 15 years ago

iokthemonkey wrote:

HiddenAway wrote:

iokthemonkey wrote:
I liked the way they took elements of Holmes ''lore'' and twisted them around - the Three Patch Problem was a great line. I wonder if he's going to shoot ER into the wall next week...

I found myself scratching my head at that one. Admittedly, I've never read the books so maybe I've missed something (apart from the fact that 3 patches will make you far too relaxed )

Holmes once described something he needed to think about for a while as a ''three pipe problem'' (i.e. it'd take the time of three pipes' worth of tobacco before he came to a solution.)

Oh, I get it now

Thanks!

iokthemonkey 26 Jul 2010 18:32:58 4,662 posts
Seen 9 years ago
Registered 13 years ago

There were a lot of bits they updated and switched around. That was one of the things I thought they did well - taking the familiar and then turning it on its head, so fans could get the reference but then see something new, too.

Ged42 26 Jul 2010 19:41:21 7,985 posts
Seen 2 years ago
Registered 14 years ago

I only just realised that both versions of Watson are veterans of wars in Afghanistan. When I was watching the TV series I though the book Watson fought in the Crimea, but Wikipedia just corrected me.

iokthemonkey 26 Jul 2010 19:44:04 4,662 posts
Seen 9 years ago
Registered 13 years ago

Ged42 wrote:
I only just realised that both versions of Watson are veterans of wars in Afghanistan. When I was watching the TV series I though the book Watson fought in the Crimea, but Wikipedia just corrected me.

There was also a gag about Watson's wound - it used to change in the books between a hip and shoulder injury (hence the comment at the end.)

Jackface 27 Jul 2010 00:03:30 3,736 posts
Seen 11 years ago
Registered 12 years ago

That was fantastic, but Gatiss and the character hes playing were naff. Holmes is basically The Doctor all over. I suspect Moffat had both of these actors in mind for both these roles at one time, unable to decide...

Tiger_Walts 27 Jul 2010 01:48:33 16,674 posts
Seen 4 years ago
Registered 19 years ago

Martin Freeman is just THE Everyman, isn't he? Need someone quite ordinary to be a hero in a quite inextraordinary fashion despite his circumstances? He's your man. Seems the best way to write a Watson is to make him a total Mary Sue, which is why the bumbling Nigel Bruce to Basil Rathbone's Holmes feels so wrong. When asked who you'd rather be, Holmes or Watson, you'd most likely pick the latter.

iokthemonkey 27 Jul 2010 02:00:37 4,662 posts
Seen 9 years ago
Registered 13 years ago

Tiger_Walts wrote:
Martin Freeman is just THE Everyman, isn't he? Need someone quite ordinary to be a hero in a quite inextraordinary fashion despite his circumstances? He's your man. Seems the best way to write a Watson is to make him a total Mary Sue, which is why the bumbling Nigel Bruce to Basil Rathbone's Holmes feels so wrong. When asked who you'd rather be, Holmes or Watson, you'd most likely pick the latter.

I was pleased to see Watson wasn't a bumbling idiot - he's not in the books. He's brave, inspired at times and a ladies' man (at least by Victorian standards.) It was nice to see them elevating Holmes by making him brilliant, not by making Watson a fool.

Immaterial 27 Jul 2010 09:14:05 2,626 posts
Seen 2 days ago
Registered 14 years ago

Basically what Jackface and Tiger said.
Holmes is the Doctor, with a mobile instead of a sonic screwdriver, and Watson is in there as the heroic everyman to give a more sympathetic focus for the audience.
This was made with a weather eye on the export market, seeing as how the Doctor is such a money spinner for the Beeb at the moment.
NB this not a complaint- thought it was excellent telly which stayed pretty faithful to its characters.

Seeing as how there are what? Fifty? Holmes stories, I really hope this is a success.

Sherlock (Moffat/Gatiss) • Page 2