Showing posts with label BLUE. Show all posts
Showing posts with label BLUE. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 16, 2014
Thursday, December 11, 2014
Wednesday, December 10, 2014
Tuesday, December 9, 2014
Monday, December 8, 2014
Wednesday, December 3, 2014
Tuesday, December 2, 2014
Friday, June 13, 2014
The Adventure of the Six Napoleons - Brad's summer reading number 4 - What would you have done?
SIXN is a fun story.
Both Holmes and Watson are in Baker St.
Lestrade is now on really good terms with the duo, seemly stopping by for pleasant evenings quite often.
Holmes is almost jocular.
Watson is, well, Watson.
The case is fun and interesting. Most of us believe Holmes had most of it solved before he even left Baker St., with just some of the details missing.
We find Holmes and Watson sharing meals, and at times sharing them with Lestrade.
It is how we picture the world revolving around 221b. (And Watson is looking very young in this SP illustration.)
And just like BLUE, the case ends up involving a gem.
(As do several other tales in the Canon).
But it dose share at least one other similarity with BLUE.
And that is the gem is actually in the possession of another before Holmes finds it.
In BLUE the stone is found by that other person, Peterson, then brought to Holmes.
In SIXN Holmes discovers the location and acquires the stone without ever telling the other person.
In a past re-rendering of an SP illustration, I have made fun of how much of the reward commissionaire Peterson receives for actually finding the carbuncle and always wondered if Peterson actually ever saw any of the reward. It is never mentioned and we are left to guess.
Much the same thing happens again in SIXN. Once Mr. Sanderford relinquishes his copy of the statue Holmes has complete command of the reward. Yes, Mr. Sanderford does receive ten pounds, a goodly profit on his purchase (and ten pounds could buy more back then than it does now!) for the statue, but he does not get to participate in the complete story. He gets no chance to make the right decision as to the proper return of stolen object.
Would it be like buy something at a garage sale for one dollar, knowing the full value is in the thousands, and not telling the owner? Or is it the fault of the owner for not knowing the real value?
Just like in BLUE, Holmes takes on the full responsibility and judgement of the reward (if there is one).
Now, it could be argued that Sanderford would never have known about the stone, so therefore was fairly treated. But once the story did reach the press (or the Strand), the truth would have come out.
Could Holmes not have explained the reason for the purchase at a higher amount to Mr. Sanderford?
And why did he feel the need to get in writing a note saying Sanderford gave up all claim (he didn't do it in BLUE), especially since Mr. Sanderford was so honest with Holmes about his purchase price? Had Holmes had a problem along these lines once before?
But in BLUE, Peterson does know of the gem and yet never once asks about a reward for finding it and turning it over to Holmes.
As we Play the Game we come to realize that we will never know answers to many of our question, and that many things take place after our involvement in the stories.
But it is still an interesting point to ponder.
Both Holmes and Watson are in Baker St.
Lestrade is now on really good terms with the duo, seemly stopping by for pleasant evenings quite often.
Holmes is almost jocular.
Watson is, well, Watson.
The case is fun and interesting. Most of us believe Holmes had most of it solved before he even left Baker St., with just some of the details missing.
We find Holmes and Watson sharing meals, and at times sharing them with Lestrade.
It is how we picture the world revolving around 221b. (And Watson is looking very young in this SP illustration.)
(As do several other tales in the Canon).
But it dose share at least one other similarity with BLUE.
And that is the gem is actually in the possession of another before Holmes finds it.
In BLUE the stone is found by that other person, Peterson, then brought to Holmes.
In SIXN Holmes discovers the location and acquires the stone without ever telling the other person.
In a past re-rendering of an SP illustration, I have made fun of how much of the reward commissionaire Peterson receives for actually finding the carbuncle and always wondered if Peterson actually ever saw any of the reward. It is never mentioned and we are left to guess.
Much the same thing happens again in SIXN. Once Mr. Sanderford relinquishes his copy of the statue Holmes has complete command of the reward. Yes, Mr. Sanderford does receive ten pounds, a goodly profit on his purchase (and ten pounds could buy more back then than it does now!) for the statue, but he does not get to participate in the complete story. He gets no chance to make the right decision as to the proper return of stolen object.
Would it be like buy something at a garage sale for one dollar, knowing the full value is in the thousands, and not telling the owner? Or is it the fault of the owner for not knowing the real value?
Just like in BLUE, Holmes takes on the full responsibility and judgement of the reward (if there is one).
Now, it could be argued that Sanderford would never have known about the stone, so therefore was fairly treated. But once the story did reach the press (or the Strand), the truth would have come out.
Could Holmes not have explained the reason for the purchase at a higher amount to Mr. Sanderford?
And why did he feel the need to get in writing a note saying Sanderford gave up all claim (he didn't do it in BLUE), especially since Mr. Sanderford was so honest with Holmes about his purchase price? Had Holmes had a problem along these lines once before?
But in BLUE, Peterson does know of the gem and yet never once asks about a reward for finding it and turning it over to Holmes.
As we Play the Game we come to realize that we will never know answers to many of our question, and that many things take place after our involvement in the stories.
But it is still an interesting point to ponder.
Tuesday, January 21, 2014
'Sherlock' season three - a review of 'The Empty Hearse'
I sat down over the last couple of days and watched the beginnings of season three, twice. I wanted to make sure I was able to give it a fair, in my opinion, assessment.
I think it is fair to say that both 'Elementary' and 'Sherlock' are now falling prey to the same problems. The lack of good deductive cases and a presentation of a modern Holmes that in all ways possible measures up to Doyle's creation.
While I believe 'Elementary' is coming by those problems honestly and is making a strong case for it's methods, I feel 'Sherlock' in some ways is enjoying the mockery it's methods are thriving on.
I feel at this point 'Elementay', of the two, if either indeed can claim the distinction, is being more faithful to Sherlockians than is 'Sherlock'.
Sunday's episode, 'The Empty Hearse', had, as we have come to expect from 'Sherlock', some moments of brilliance. But each one of those moments of brilliance has at least one matching moment of camp, slapstick or disappointment.
Arguably the Canonical references far out number ones placed in 'Elementary' (and if you want to see the best reviewed list of references check out Buddy2blogger's site.), and to be honest are probably played better.
But 'Sherlock', just as 'Elementary' is accused of, is now injecting those references seemly more to meet a quota than move the story along. (What is the required quota of references per episode?)
I thought Martin Freeman as John Watson did some of his best work yet in the show. I just loved his portrayal of the injured Watson when he first encountered Holmes again in the restaurant. He plays the 'everyman' very well.
But then the moment was spoiled with the almost comic way they had Holmes handling the situation and with the way they filmed the fisticuffs between the two.
Martin Freeman had several other wonderful scenes through out the episode, and although the writers let down his character a bit, Freeman was spot on.
However. . . the relationship between Holmes and Watson has almost become comical in it's co-dependency.
While Holmes chastised Mycroft for allowing him to suffer under the Serbs hands for so long, Holmes as played in 'Sherlock', has no problem putting Watson through emotionally the same treatment over and over.
And Watson has no problem each time with going back for more.
It almost became sickening to watch how many times 'Sherlock's' Holmes required gratification from Watson while being only minimally sincere with his own feelings towards Watson.
Bill Cochran in his wonderful book about the 'Great Hiatus' suggested that Holmes returned to Baker Street after his big fall more a complete man; more in control, kinder, less critical and more introspective.
The Holmes of 'Sherlock', if anything, came back with a bigger ego, less compassionate, less understanding and perhaps even relishing more in his sociopathic tendencies.
He requires help from Molly and Lestrade but it is clear, they also are very co-dependant on the relationships. We expect it from Lestrade because his career depends on it, but Molly is definitely co-dependent. (And at least they are not shying away from that.)
The case, as is the case sometimes in 'Elementary', was unimportant to what he episode was really about. And I think we expected that. But unfortunately the resolution of the 'Great Hiatus' was more of let down the the solution of the case. (I still am not clear on it was done, or why Watson didn't need to know.)
More so in this episode than all the others for me, the Holmes that Benedict Cumberbatch is suppose to portray seems to be almost a mockery of the treats and habits Sherlockians are so fond of.
The episode with his parents was appalling.
The conversation over the 'Operation' game board was an intended mockery and childish.
'Elementary' has become a show about Sherlock's and Watson's back story, at least for the time being.
"Sherlock' was expected to be a show about a brilliant detective in the modern era, and while the promise is still there, 'The Empty Hearse' came no where near meeting that promise.
I have to admit I am probably a little denser than many reviewers of the show, and probably miss a lot of the hidden meanings. And not being a Dr Who fan, I am not familiar with the style of Moffet and Catiss. And although I once praised them for their seeming sincerity towards the show they are also very much missing the mark in the sincerity department with 'The Empty Hearse'.
'Elementary' was criticized for the relationship between Holmes and Mycroft, but the relationship between the brothers in 'Sherlock' to me is even more dysfunctional. While we are always being told Mycroft is the smarter of the two it is not being shown in actual deductive work. Yes he is more controlling, but smarter. . .?
Most of the time watching this episode, especially when Sherlock was interacting with others, and definitely when interacting with Mycroft, I felt I was watching a 'Mad' magazine version of Sherlock Holmes.
I was hoping Watson would deck Holmes again in the subway car. That scene, setting up Watson, knowing the bomb could be shut down, having called the police, all played to Sherlock's ego and not to his return from the brink.
It was very disappointing when Holmes would go into his Volcan mind melt routine. I think these were suppose to infer that he was deep in thought while deducing a clue of some kind. Way over done this time.
I am sure, or at least hope, many of the things I found missing in the episode will be explained in upcoming shows. We will see.
There were however many things I liked about the episode.
As stated earlier, Martin Freeman's performance as Watson.
So far I very much like Amanda Abbington as Mary Morstan.
I was surprised I found the references to 'fandom' a nice nod to the loyal 'fan-atics' while not really taking their input all that seriously. Although Anderson was a little over done. I really liked the scene where all the 'fan-atics' learn Holmes is alive. A good nod to all the societies that play the game. Even to the one who wear the hats. ( I loved the gals line about thinking they shouldn't wear the hats!)
I loved some of the lines Mrs. Hudson got to deliver.
I also loved most of the tit-for-tat over the hat.
Many bloggers have often stated that it is unfair to compare 'Sherlock' and 'Elementary' to each other.
I have never thought that the case, and with 'The Empty Hearse' I find those comparisons very relevant.
Some of the Canonical references I came up with, (and go look at Buddy2blogges list while you are at it.)
- Mycroft hating field work
- Suggested Holmes would have made a good criminal
- London as a cesspool of crime
- BLUE with the deduction on the hat
- monographs (and I loved Mrs. Hudson's comments about that)
- monkey glands
- step dad keeping step daughter for her money
- returning to Watson in disguise
and of course all the other regular nods to his behavior.
This would have been a great April Fools episode.
I can, based on my expectations of 'Sherlock' only fairly give this episode;
I think it is fair to say that both 'Elementary' and 'Sherlock' are now falling prey to the same problems. The lack of good deductive cases and a presentation of a modern Holmes that in all ways possible measures up to Doyle's creation.
While I believe 'Elementary' is coming by those problems honestly and is making a strong case for it's methods, I feel 'Sherlock' in some ways is enjoying the mockery it's methods are thriving on.
I feel at this point 'Elementay', of the two, if either indeed can claim the distinction, is being more faithful to Sherlockians than is 'Sherlock'.
Sunday's episode, 'The Empty Hearse', had, as we have come to expect from 'Sherlock', some moments of brilliance. But each one of those moments of brilliance has at least one matching moment of camp, slapstick or disappointment.
Arguably the Canonical references far out number ones placed in 'Elementary' (and if you want to see the best reviewed list of references check out Buddy2blogger's site.), and to be honest are probably played better.
But 'Sherlock', just as 'Elementary' is accused of, is now injecting those references seemly more to meet a quota than move the story along. (What is the required quota of references per episode?)
I thought Martin Freeman as John Watson did some of his best work yet in the show. I just loved his portrayal of the injured Watson when he first encountered Holmes again in the restaurant. He plays the 'everyman' very well.
But then the moment was spoiled with the almost comic way they had Holmes handling the situation and with the way they filmed the fisticuffs between the two.
Martin Freeman had several other wonderful scenes through out the episode, and although the writers let down his character a bit, Freeman was spot on.
However. . . the relationship between Holmes and Watson has almost become comical in it's co-dependency.
While Holmes chastised Mycroft for allowing him to suffer under the Serbs hands for so long, Holmes as played in 'Sherlock', has no problem putting Watson through emotionally the same treatment over and over.
And Watson has no problem each time with going back for more.
It almost became sickening to watch how many times 'Sherlock's' Holmes required gratification from Watson while being only minimally sincere with his own feelings towards Watson.
Bill Cochran in his wonderful book about the 'Great Hiatus' suggested that Holmes returned to Baker Street after his big fall more a complete man; more in control, kinder, less critical and more introspective.
The Holmes of 'Sherlock', if anything, came back with a bigger ego, less compassionate, less understanding and perhaps even relishing more in his sociopathic tendencies.
He requires help from Molly and Lestrade but it is clear, they also are very co-dependant on the relationships. We expect it from Lestrade because his career depends on it, but Molly is definitely co-dependent. (And at least they are not shying away from that.)
The case, as is the case sometimes in 'Elementary', was unimportant to what he episode was really about. And I think we expected that. But unfortunately the resolution of the 'Great Hiatus' was more of let down the the solution of the case. (I still am not clear on it was done, or why Watson didn't need to know.)
More so in this episode than all the others for me, the Holmes that Benedict Cumberbatch is suppose to portray seems to be almost a mockery of the treats and habits Sherlockians are so fond of.
The episode with his parents was appalling.
The conversation over the 'Operation' game board was an intended mockery and childish.
'Elementary' has become a show about Sherlock's and Watson's back story, at least for the time being.
"Sherlock' was expected to be a show about a brilliant detective in the modern era, and while the promise is still there, 'The Empty Hearse' came no where near meeting that promise.
I have to admit I am probably a little denser than many reviewers of the show, and probably miss a lot of the hidden meanings. And not being a Dr Who fan, I am not familiar with the style of Moffet and Catiss. And although I once praised them for their seeming sincerity towards the show they are also very much missing the mark in the sincerity department with 'The Empty Hearse'.
'Elementary' was criticized for the relationship between Holmes and Mycroft, but the relationship between the brothers in 'Sherlock' to me is even more dysfunctional. While we are always being told Mycroft is the smarter of the two it is not being shown in actual deductive work. Yes he is more controlling, but smarter. . .?
Most of the time watching this episode, especially when Sherlock was interacting with others, and definitely when interacting with Mycroft, I felt I was watching a 'Mad' magazine version of Sherlock Holmes.
I was hoping Watson would deck Holmes again in the subway car. That scene, setting up Watson, knowing the bomb could be shut down, having called the police, all played to Sherlock's ego and not to his return from the brink.
It was very disappointing when Holmes would go into his Volcan mind melt routine. I think these were suppose to infer that he was deep in thought while deducing a clue of some kind. Way over done this time.
I am sure, or at least hope, many of the things I found missing in the episode will be explained in upcoming shows. We will see.
There were however many things I liked about the episode.
As stated earlier, Martin Freeman's performance as Watson.
So far I very much like Amanda Abbington as Mary Morstan.
I was surprised I found the references to 'fandom' a nice nod to the loyal 'fan-atics' while not really taking their input all that seriously. Although Anderson was a little over done. I really liked the scene where all the 'fan-atics' learn Holmes is alive. A good nod to all the societies that play the game. Even to the one who wear the hats. ( I loved the gals line about thinking they shouldn't wear the hats!)
I loved some of the lines Mrs. Hudson got to deliver.
I also loved most of the tit-for-tat over the hat.
Many bloggers have often stated that it is unfair to compare 'Sherlock' and 'Elementary' to each other.
I have never thought that the case, and with 'The Empty Hearse' I find those comparisons very relevant.
Some of the Canonical references I came up with, (and go look at Buddy2blogges list while you are at it.)
- Mycroft hating field work
- Suggested Holmes would have made a good criminal
- London as a cesspool of crime
- BLUE with the deduction on the hat
- monographs (and I loved Mrs. Hudson's comments about that)
- monkey glands
- step dad keeping step daughter for her money
- returning to Watson in disguise
and of course all the other regular nods to his behavior.
This would have been a great April Fools episode.
I can, based on my expectations of 'Sherlock' only fairly give this episode;
Oh, yea, I also found it a statement on this episode that a certain blogger who rails on 'Elementary' has as of yet commented on this episode more than just saying he is glad to have it back. ?????
Friday, December 27, 2013
.jpg)
Thursday, December 19, 2013
Wednesday, December 11, 2013
Next great line from BLUE
“He brought round both hat and goose to me on Christmas morning, knowing that even the smallest problems are of interest to me. The goose we retained until this morning, when there were signs that, in spite of the slight frost, it would be well that it should be eaten without unnecessary delay. Its finder has carried it off, therefore, to fulfil the ultimate destiny of a goose, while I continue to retain the hat of the unknown gentleman who lost his Christmas dinner.”
Tuesday, December 10, 2013
Another good line from BLUE
"No, no. No crime," said Sherlock Holmes, laughing. "Only one of those whimsical little incidents which will happen when you have four million human beings all jostling each other within the space of a few square miles. Amid the action and reaction of so dense a swarm of humanity, every possible combination of events may be expected to take place, and many a little problem will be presented which may be striking and bizarre without being criminal. We have already had experience of such."
"So much so," l remarked, "that of the last six cases which I have added to my notes, three have been entirely free of any legal crime."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)