It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Subscribe to our Patreon, and get image uploads with no ads on the site!
Base theme by DesignModo & ported to Powered by Vanilla by Chris Ireland, modified by the "theFB" team.
Comments
If everything had to stick with their original setting then at least 80% of science fiction and westerns would have to be deleted as they are all updates to Kurosawa films.
Even The Gunfight at the OK Corral and Star Wars would all have to go.
I am extremely picky about Holmes. I love the character. I have about 9 different versions of “Hound…” that I’ve collected and they all have their charms.
Not only that, but updates encourage new fans to delve into the rich world of Holmes.
Nothing was forced.It was superbly written and Lucy Lieu was exactly the right choice.
I’m so bored I might as well be listening to Pink Floyd
It definitely is more in the sci-fi realm than alternative history at this point. The introduction of multiverse situations and this idea that a successful Nazi war campaign would have led to not just global domination but then also that "evil" spreading to other dimensions is a long way from the original sort of plot points of families being massacred and vengeful resistance fighters.
Still quite enjoying it, but it's starting to feel a bit like Timecop or something.
Sherlock was too full of the writers going 'look how clever we are" although the Cumberbatch/Freeeman dynamic qworked well for me.
Fucking 'Passenger' on ITV. What the actual fffffffff?
Anyone else watched it?
The WHOLE premise of these 'oooh what's really going on?' mystery dramas is that eventually they tell you - so that all the deliberately obscure and vague suggestions as to what might be going on get resolved and you stop being frustrated. But it just stops. I genuinely thought there was an episode or 2 missing from ITVX.
Googling suggests others thought the same.
The story evolves gradually and pulls you along at the right pace, with suitable tension in some scenes, making it an easy watch. The characters themselves are a bit 'thin' perhaps but I did like their inter-relationships and the underlying plot twists.
My gripe is the ending ... I don't wanna spoil it for anyone but if you've watched it then you'll know.
Despite the 2-point deduction for the above it's still a 7.5/10
(Is it OK if I carry on playing the blues, or is that different?)
When someone makes a story using famous characters, I think part of this suspension of disbelief involves an expectation that they will remain (relatively) true to the originals. If I enjoyed a Sherlock Holmes story in the past, part of that enjoyment will have been the way that characters and their environments were constructed. Play around with this and you risk allowing the pleasurable illusion we enjoyed in the first place to fall apart.
Music has nothing of this. We may sense something in original blues and jazz that we prefer to later versions of it, but the kind of narrative worlds and illusions that operate within stories just aren't there. Completely different ballgame.
Even for ACD, he took a enormous gamble to come back and write 'Hound' after the Falls.
Suspension of disbelief is a minute-by-minute thing that can be ruined by anything. But risk is always needed to move characters forward. Even in the original books we learned a little more about Holmes and Watson than we knew before and I have no doubt at the time a good portion of readers were unhappy with something.
Did you even try 'Elementary' or did you judge a book by its cover and decide to be upset based on nothing other than the casting?
I’m so bored I might as well be listening to Pink Floyd
You want be disappointed, it's brilliant.
But you are bent out of shape because your imagination is not match for your ideas on race. Sadly, you're not alone:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-68739588
https://www.indy100.com/tv/rings-of-power-lotr-black-hobbits
IIRC, there was a whole "you can't have black mermaids" thing over Disney, too.
I do love imaginative versions of works within what I would consider reasonable parameters set by the author. Franco Zeffirelli's 1968 Romeo and Juliet was wonderful, in my view, for example. However, the Leonardo di Caprio version, which set the story in the modern era was not. Part of the reason, in this case, is that one aspect of historical drama I like is precisely that - the historical recreation. I do not generally want directors attempting to 'make it relevant' by updating everything. But not everyone agrees, and that's fine. I think there was an updated version of Macbeth in the 90s with Al Pacino. Not my thing, but I get that some people like a much freer interpretation of classic works and characters.
I'm guessing part of the reason for your feeling of entitlement to fire off a personal attack as opposed to respectfully disagreeing in part comes down to the fact that PC issues of gender and race are involved. Lucy Lu is a woman and she's Asian-American, and in the present moral climate anyone who suggests these qualities may or should make her less suitable for certain acting roles is immediately going to come under emotional fire from certain quarters. I don't see it like that. Race and gender, like any other feature of an actor's makeup will make him or her more or less suitable for a part, in my view. This is no more sexist or racist that it would be elitist to turn down a job applicant who lacked the proper qualifications for a post.
I’m so bored I might as well be listening to Pink Floyd
I'm certainly glad they didn't exercise a similar stroke of 'imaginative' brilliance by putting Vikings in present day Chicago with a ... you fill in the blank! ... to play the role of Ragnar Lothbrok.
The professor was also Lydia in breaking bad!
We've got Sky's Chernobyl series lined up next - any good?