Showing posts with label Benedict Cumberbatch. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Benedict Cumberbatch. Show all posts

Tuesday, September 19, 2017

Well, if he says it's okay. . . .

Benedict Cumberbatch Supports Female Sherlock Holmes

Benedict Cumberbatch is open to having a female Sherlock Holmes in the future. The British actor, who has played the contemporary version of the iconic character for four seasons now in the hit BBC TV series Sherlock, has made it clear that he has no problem whatsoever with the thought that a gender switch might be executed for the fan-favorite detective in the future.
Coming off of the huge announcement that long-running British series Doctor Who has tapped Jodie Whittaker to take over Peter Capaldi’s spot as the next reincarnation of the eponymous Time Lord, discussions about gender-swapping popular roles in mainstream media have become more frequent than ever. After years of campaigns for a female time-traveling doctor, the Broadchurch star was finally announced to be the Thirteenth regeneration of the character. Admittedly, not everyone was very receptive to the change, with some questioning the decision made by the BBC. Cumberbatch, however, is among those who are thrilled to see Whittaker’s take on such a pop culture icon.
Speaking to Variety while promoting his upcoming drama The Child In Time (which is the first venture from his new production company, SunnyMarch), the Oscars-nominated actor leapt to Doctor Who‘s casting shake-up’s defense and expressed his excitement to see Whittaker’s version of the Doctor:
“It’s an alien. Why can’t it be a woman, why can’t it be any gender? It doesn’t matter to me. I don’t speak as someone who has the right as a fan to have an incredibly strong opinion. I just speak as someone who wants to see Jodie Whittaker’s performance as the Doctor. I think she’s an extraordinary actress and we’re lucky, culturally, to have got her to agree to do it, let alone any debate ensuing about whether it’s right or wrong.”
Given his approval of a female Doctor, Cumberbatch was then asked about his thoughts of possibly also having a female version of his sassy detective role, Sherlock Holmes. Similar to his thoughts on Doctor Who, Cumberbatch does not see any problem with having a female Sherlock Holmes appear on either the small and/or big screen in the future. “Why not? I don’t care. ‘Sherlockina’ is coming to you soon,” he said.
While Cumberbatch does have a point regarding Doctor Who‘s gender swap, it might be a bit more complicated to do a similar change with Sherlock. The eponymous Time Lord’s regeneration every few years (or seasons, with regard to the show itself) provides the series with an opportunity to easily execute the lead modification without having to get into the nitty-gritty of what happened to the other iterations of the character and how come the new one is suddenly female after a slew of men playing the role. Sherlock’s various incantations, on the other hand, are all rather independent of one another. As such, should a female Holmes eventually makes her debut on the big and/or small screen, it would presumably be a separate entity from Cumberbatch’s version.

Friday, January 20, 2017

'There's something about Mary'- Sherlock, the end.

Well, here we are. After all this waiting and anticipating we have what appears to be the end of 'Sherlock'.
Not Sherlock Holmes, just Sherlock.

For better or worse, there it is.

And over the last week our so we have had a bunch of "Sherlockians" telling us if it was good or bad. Most just stating their own opinion, others telling us we are wrong if we don't agree with them. And if not telling us we are wrong, they at least try to but us in that 'old school' 'closed mind' category of Sherlockian.

We have been told that the key people involved are "Artists". And that 'Sherlock' was art.

Well, like with all art, and many artists (whether other people claim them as such, or it is a self given title) there is good art and bad art and using the often used quote, "Art is in the eye of the beholder."

While not being 'bad' art, it is not museum worthy.

For me 'Sherlock' is a show that did not meet up to its potential, nor do I think it achieved what it set out to do or could possibly have done. (It is not good when before you see they final episode they have to have a piece telling you why it was made the way it was.)

The first year suggested hope and potential, and while there were a few bright spots along the way it never dazzled as it should have. All the makings were there, but the light never came on all the way.
Wonderful actors playing the key roles. Wonderful sets and locations. The budget to go along with it.
Source material with infinite possibilities, and what at first appeared to be writers who loved the source.

As I said way back in 2010 when it all started, Martin Freeman and Benedict Cumberbatch are two of the best things to happen to Sherlock Holmes in a very long time. Their talents and skills can not be over looked as very good choices to play Holmes and Watson whether in a modern era of 1895.
They had the theatrical flare to pull off the larger than life characters they were asked to play.
And time after time they did that. But they were never allowed to complete that portrayal throughout the series run, at least not for me.
These remain two of my favorite actors in this day and age and I look forward to seeing their other works.

But when it really comes right down to it we have to decide if these portrayals of Holmes and Watson come close to matching the images we have created in our, using a much over used phrase of late, 'brain attic'.
If we take a still photo of these two actors as Holmes and Watson it is easy to imagine both as those to Canonical individuals.
But once Cumberbatch's Holmes goes into his 'highly functional sociopath' portrayal the bubble bursts for me.

The enjoyment of the Canon for me is the individual cases that Holmes is asked to solve, with just little pieces of back story thrown in to create a bigger image for us over time.

While many of the Canon based cases are mentioned in 'Sherlock' most it seems,  just like 'Elementary' is accused of doing, are thrown in as Canonical bait to keep us biting.

I don't want my Sherlock Holmes to be a murderer or a high functioning sociopath.
I don't want my Mrs. Hudson to be the ex-wife of a drug dealer.
I don't want my Mary Morstan dying in this show just so she can compete with Ethan Hunt in Mission Impossible Six or what ever.
I don't want my Mycroft to be as dumb as he turned out to be.
I don't want my Holmes to be related to James Bond.
I don't want my Sherlock Holmes to come from a family more dysfunctional than the Adam's family.

Unfortunately for all that was great, yes I said great, about 'Sherlock', there was just as much that wasn't.

We hardly ever witnessed Sherlock doing good. And, again for me, Canonically Holmes in the end was about doing good.

While we are all left to decide for ourselves what is good art we must also realize that we get to chose who we think good artists are.
And please artist's either use brushes or finger paints, not both.

Why did I title this essay 'There's something about Mary."? Well because I thought she delivered the best line of the whole series, all four years.

I will do my best to quote the whole thing here at the end.

She said;

"A junky who gets high on solving crime.
A doctor who never came home from the war.

Well you listen to me.
Who you are doesn't really matter.
It's all about the legend, the stories, the adventures.
The last refuge for the desperate, the unloved, the persecuted.
There is a final court of appeal for everyone.

When life gets to strange, to impossible, to frightening there is always one last hope.

When all else fails, there are two men sitting arguing in a scruffy flat, like they have always been there and they always will be the best and wisest men I have ever known.

My Baker St. Boys.

Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson."

This should have been the guide lines for 'Sherlock' all along.
This is the path they should have gone down modern era or not. Using cell phones, the patch and texting.


Tuesday, August 16, 2016

Can 'Sherlock' survive without B.C.

Usually I cut and paste pieces at times here and link a credit to the source.
But this one was so badly written I thought I would just post the question brought up in the piece instead.
With all the talk that the principles are all to busy to continue their output for 'Sherlock', the question was asked; "If Benedict Cumberbatch does not return again, can the series survive without him?"

While replacements have at times worked, such as Batman, Jack Ryan and our own Watson from the Granada series, Capt. Kirk, etc., it hardly, to me, seems likely that another actor could take over from the fantastic job Benedict Cumberbatch has done. His performance is so nouanced that I can't imagine a replacement

What do you think?

Thursday, August 4, 2016

What does the future hold?

Benedict Cumberbatch talks future of 'Sherlock'

Series 4 of BBC show is expected in 2017

Benedict Cumberbatch has addressed uncertainty over the future of Sherlock.

Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman started shooting the new series in May, joined once again by Amanda Abbington as Mary Morstan, as well as by a new villain played by Toby Jones. 

Cumberbatch joined Abbington plus the show's co-creators Steven Moffat and Mark Gatiss for a panel at Comic-Con in San Diego last month (July 24), when he was asked how long the show could keep going for.

"We’ll see. We’ll see how this series lands," Cumberbatch responded, as reported by Collider.

"It’s been great fun to come back and do it. How it will continue in the future, who knows? It’s not just about what any of us want. It’s about what’s actually right for the show, to be honest, and that has to be judged very carefully."

Cumberbatch continued: "Think about the very limited but classic British output of certain shows, and there aren’t that many of them. It’s a painful thing to say, but maybe Series Four is it. Who knows? I don’t know. I don’t want to say this is it because we have too much fun doing it. But generally, we have to see how this lands."
"And the actors aren’t the only ones who are busy," he added. "Mark and Steven are pretty tied up. Mark is an actor, as well as a producer and writer. It’s all of us being stretched in different directions. Also, this has run longer than most American series. You don’t want to compromise it by continually doing it, just because we could carry it on. There’s lots of stuff to weigh. It’s not just about what we want to do. It’s about what’s right. We’ll see. Really, we will have to see. No one has decided on it, so there’s no yes or no to an end or a beginning."

Steven Moffat went on to say: "We have to take it one season at a time. We don’t know what the future will be, and it’s not entirely down to us. Hopefully, we’ll do more. I find it hard to imagine that we won’t. But in terms of a specific plan, there are ideas that we haven’t gotten to yet."

During the panel, Abbington told fans of the new series: "It's really dark. It's the darkest Steven and Mark have written."

The BBC has previously revealed that series four will begin with Cumberbatch's title character "back once more on British soil as Doctor Watson and his wife, Mary, prepare for their biggest ever challenge - becoming parents for the first time".

Cumberbatch and Freeman returned in a one-off special, Sherlock: The Abominable Bride, on New Year's Day this year. The special attracted an audience of 11.6 million viewers, making it the most-watched programme of the 2015-16 festive season.

The show's last series, which also consisted of three episodes, aired in 2014. Cumberbatch and Freeman first played Doyle's iconic characters in 2010 and each actor has won an Emmy for his performance.

source

Tuesday, August 2, 2016

What Doctor Strange & Sherlock Holmes Have In Common Will Get You Excited For Benedict Cumberbatch's Next Role

When Collider asked Cumberbatch what people would find surprising about the upcoming film, the actor's answer had to do with some of Stephen Strange's particular qualities. He said:
"Quite how much he suffers and how extraordinary his willpower is. I think that's his main superhero trait, is that the guy is sort of unstoppably stubborn. He won't cease. And that's great, because you see this character really go through the grinder. It's non-stop punishment for this dude. What he has to become and how quickly he's tested in the new arena that he becomes this person is so violent, so sudden, so non-stop, and psychologically brutal as well as physically very very brutal. It's a huge character arc. So I think that might surprise people."
Doesn't "unstoppably stubborn" seem like a familiar characteristic of Sherlock? What about this concept of "not ceasing"? While Stephen Strange and Sherlock Holmes couldn't be more different in terms of how they solve things (Sherlock is ruled by logic, where Strange has mystical, magical powers), I deduce that Doctor Strange and Sherlock Holmes are not so different after all. Which makes Benedict Cumberbatch all the better to nail the role. And the film? All the better for it.

Sherlock would likely laugh at Doctor Strange's source of power. Like the Cloak of Levitation that allows him to fly or the Eye of Agamotto that he wears around to protect himself from illusions. But like Sherlock, Stephen Strange has endured what Cumberbatch calls "non-stop punishment," and that's part of what makes him so compelling. After he injure's his hand in a car accident, his career is over and he must find a way to get his abilities to back. If Cumberbatch is able to bring the kind of pathos to Strange as he brought to Sherlock, then this will be another character of his we soon won't forget.

Wednesday, July 13, 2016

I just couldn't do it. . . .

I was going to post some recent pictures of Benedict Cumberbatch as Sherlock for the up coming season.
But I chose not to get drawn into all the tease that goes on with each upcoming season, however far apart they are.
I am going to wait for something definite. Or maybe not.

Friday, June 10, 2016

Well maybe it will finally be cleared up once and for all . . . . .

Just a snipit.  . . .

Important New Season
"Sherlock" Season 4 will become very pivotal for the entire franchise as a lot of previous characters will return along with a possible love interest for the main protagonist. Fans are curious as to who this love interest might be as Sherlock's last romantic partner, Irene Adler, appeared two seasons ago. They continue to question if Adler might also be part of the rumored characters to return this season.
While there has yet to be any official release date for the series, "Sherlock" Season 4 is expected to hit the small screens this January 2017.
Source

Wednesday, June 1, 2016

The case of the rugged rogue? Benedict Cumberbatch sports some heavy stubble as Sherlock Holmes in a stark contrast to the character's usual clean shaven look


He's busy filming the much-anticipated fourth series of the BBC's hit-series, Sherlock.
But Benedict Cumberbatch's roguish detective appeared to have lost his razor during his latest escapade, as the cast and crew of the detective drama filmed scenes in South Wales.
Shooting scenes in Cardiff City Centre, the 39-year-old actor sported a heavy layer of stubble as he filmed scenes alongside two elder gents - presumably integral to the plot of the episode.

Whilst the actor's dark brown locks were styled into Sherlock's trademark tousled sweep, the famous detective's usually clean shaven features were coated in a heavy layer of stubble. 

Clad in full-costume, and sporting the character's well worn great coat, a navy shirt, dark trousers and black Oxford shoes, Holmes was instantly recognizable amide the hub-bub of cast and crew.
However, it seems that the latest shoot for the series sees Sherlock at his wit's end, as the appeared slightly weary and exhausted - something further emphasized by his loose stance and open-neck shirt.


Chatting away to the crew in-between takes, the actor looked to be searching for the right inspiration to take into the scene.
Clutching a bundle of pink papers in one hand, presumably his lines, it appeared that Benedict was intent on delivering a stellar performance on camera.
And it seems that the actor was facing off against one of Sherlock's numerous enemies, as he appeared to have a tense showdown with a man in a white suit.

Looking slightly insidious, the suited individual stood out from the crowd thanks to the lime green shirt and cravat that he teamed with the cream two piece.
The blonde actor was seen facing off against Benedict in Mount Stuart Square, with the two actors mirroring each other's stances perfectly.
And it seems that it was all hands on deck, as the actors were joined by numerous members of the cast and extras, as well as a heavy contingent of crew. 
Filming has continued at full-pace following Sherlock co-creators Steven Moffat and Gatiss confirmation that the show was returning in April - following the New Year's special earlier in the year.

In a statement, Steven and Mark said: 'Sherlock series four - here we go again!
'Whatever else we do, wherever we all go, all roads lead back to Baker Street - and it always feels like coming home.
'Ghosts of the past are rising in the lives of Sherlock Holmes and John Watson bringing adventure, romance and terror in their wake.
'This is the story we've been telling from the beginning. A story about to reach its climax.'
Benedict said he was 'thrilled' to be back as the detective.
He said: 'I can't wait for everyone to see season four. But you will have to wait... though not for long... And it will be worth it.'
Series four will return to BBC later this year with three feature length episodes. 



Thursday, May 26, 2016

You heard it here first. . . or second. . . . or third. . . but you did hear it here.

'Sherlock Season 4' Release Date, News & Update: Benedict Cumberbatch Bare In Morocco? 'Harry Potter' Actor Is Legendary Villain In S4

By Zee Mara, Parent Herald | May 26, 12:57 AM





"Sherlock Season 4" will reportedly take the adventure to Morocco as lead star Benedict Cumberbatch chases up clues and mysteries. Also joining Holmes' world is "Harry Potter" actor Toby Jones turning villainous in "Sherlock Season 4."
A New Location For 'Sherlock Season 4'
According to Metro, fans can hope to see Benedict Cumberbatch take time to frolic in the sands of Morocco as production for "Sherlock Season 4" progresses. What clues or character(s) will lead the "Sherlock Season 4" storyline to Morocco are kept secret - for now.
Scenes in colorful Morocco for "Sherlock Season 4" is a welcome change from the English-situated earlier episodes of the series. This makes for easier expectation build up on "Sherlock Season 4" topping "The Abominable Bride" special.
Some are even wondering if Benedict Cumberbatch will do a Tom Hiddleston-type baring in Morocco between takes for "Sherlock Season 4." Or if detective Holmes himself will have to do something similar well within the "Sherlock Season 4" plot.
Legendary Villain For 'Sherlock Season 4'
CinemaBlend points out that "Sherlock Season 4" definitely will have a meatier addition in Toby Jones. "Sherlock Season 4" is not the first time Toby Jones, Benedict Cumberbatch and John Watson actor Martin Freeman will be associated.
Like Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman, "Sherlock Season 4" villain Toby Jones also played a Marvel character. Citing CinemaBlend's highlight, "Captain America: The First Avenger," "Captain America: The Winter Soldier," and "Agent Carter" all had the "Sherlock Season 4" villain play evil Hydra scientist Arnim Zola.
Deadline reports that Steven Moffat promised that Toby Jones will definitely play one of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's classical villains in "Sherlock Season 4." Fortunately, there's a fine list of villains to guess from while "Sherlock Season 4" details remain under wraps.
'Sherlock Season 4' Release Schedule
Toby Jones, Martin Freeman and Benedict Cumberbatch will be rejoined by Amanda Abbington, who plays a very pregnant Mary Watson in "Sherlock Season 4." BBC is expected to release "Sherlock Season 4" in 2017.

Tuesday, May 17, 2016

You heard it here first. . . unless you have other sources for your new;)

Sherlock series 4 cast: Toby Jones joins Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman

The new series has finally started filming, with fans promised “ghosts of the past” and a baby on the horizon
Sherlock series 4 has landed its first new cast member, in beloved Brit actor Toby Jones. 
The actor, who often sports supporting roles in huge franchises such as Harry PotterCaptain America, and The Hunger Games; now joins the BBC 1 drama, Radio Times reports. "I'm excited and intrigued by the character I shall be playing," the actor stated. 
He'll join the returning Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman, alongside Amanda Abbington, Una Stubs, Rupert Graves, Jonathan Aris and Louise Brealey; with his character making an appearance in episode 2 of the new series, though his identity so far remains mysterious.
Series co-creator Stephen Moffat hinted, "Delighted to have Toby Jones on board, bringing to life one of Doyle's finest villains"; with fellow co-creator Mark Gatiss adding, "We're thrilled to welcome one of our finest actors to the Sherlock family. I know Toby will embrace the part with true relish."
Knowing only that Jones is playing a famous Arthur Conan Doyle villain opens up a whole number of possibilities, considering the author's own Holmes had a knack for making enemies. Could he be the sinister Austrian murderer Adelbert Gruner? Or smuggler John Clay? 
Or could he somehow be connecting back to Moriarty, with the hint that "ghosts of the past rising in the lives of Sherlock Holmes and John Watson" possibly signaling some sort of return for the villain? We'll have to see when the series finally airs, with reports claiming with "near certainty" it will debut on New Year's Day 2017.


Thursday, April 14, 2016

Will he end up doing all the classics?

From Doctor Strange to Dr Seuss: Benedict Cumberbatch is new Grinch

Sherlock star to voice the curmudgeonly festive party pooper previously portrayed on screen by Jim Carrey and Boris Karloff


Benedict Cumberbatch is to take the starring role in a new animated adaptation of Dr Seuss’s classic children’s book How the Grinch Stole Christmas! from the makers of Despicable Me.
The news was announced by Illumination Entertainment, the animation studio offshoot of Universal which produced the supervillain movies and last year’s spin-off Minions.
Cumberbatch succeeds Jim Carrey, who played the role in the live-action 2000 film. Horror icon Boris Karloff voiced the cave-dwelling curmudgeon in an earlier 1966 animated adaptation.
“We were determined to make a choice that would not only define this version of The Grinch as absolutely singular, but most importantly, we were looking for a voice to express comedic wickedness while embodying vulnerability,” Illumination Entertainment CEO Chris Meledandri told delegates at CinemaCon in Las Vegas. “It is that vulnerability that allows us to create a character that is not only highly entertaining, but also has an irresistible appeal.” Meledandri said the film, which is due in November 2017, would be “both modern and classic”.
How the Grinch Stole Christmas! is about a moody monster who steals all the presents and festive accoutrements from the home of a family who live near his cave, but is amazed to note that his victims do not lose their Christmas spirit. Dr Seuss, real name Theodor Geisel, published the book in 1957 and it remains among the American author’s best-known works.
Cumberbatch is hoovering up the high profile Hollywood roles, having recentlydebuted as Doctor Strange in the first trailer for the forthcoming Marvel comic book epic. He will also voice the tiger Shere Khan in Andy Serkis’s version of The Jungle Book for studio Warner Bros in 2018 – Disney’s rival version, out this weekend, features Idris Elba as the vengeful big cat – and is tipped to portray famed illusionist Jasper Maskelyne in period drama The War Magician.

Friday, April 8, 2016

Was it, and I quote from Brad, a ". . .male-dominated Sherlockian culture" back in the day?

Well, sure it was! Remember, 'back in the day' society was still very use to private clubs that catered to a certain audience.
Probably most, defiantly many would have been like the Diogenes Club, you hung out with those of like mind. If you loved fishing with a worm and cane pole, you probably would not join a fly-fishing group as it were.
Mostly male represented activities would be run mostly by males. Likewise, mostly female represented activities would be run by mostly females.
It wasn’t a matter of whether that was fair or not, it was just the way society was. And thankfully that is changing.

And since Holmes and Watson were, well, male, it would seem most likely that, well, males would form a club about them.
While there have probably always been men who have wanted to join a Jane Austin club, it is true that there have always been women who enjoyed the stories of Sherlock Holmes.
Put since, up till recently, society has usually separated the genders in clubbable situations; Sherlockians groups have mostly been male dominated by males.
But for at least as long as I have been a Sherlockian (the late 70’s) there have been very knowledgeable and active women in Sherlockian society. But still a limited number compared to now.
And that brings up two good points.
One; How much of this surge in female Sherlockian popularity is because of how handsome Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman are and the fact that ‘Sherlock’ is set in modern times?  And how fashionable the coupling of these two is with this modern incarnation of that dynamic duo.
Second; how much of this new mass female participation will survive when the show comes to an end?

I am not against a group of men, or women, who chose to want to hang out in groups with only their own gender. And I also am okay with groups that want to remain exclusive. . . even if I don’t want to belong to any of them.

And I am equally glad of the contribution women make to the world of Sherlock Holmes.
But I think, in a while, when all the fascination over ‘Sherlock’ goes away we will see, once again, a decrease in female participation.

I do however hope that is not the case because they have so much to offer.
Now, actually running a Sherlock Holmes club. . . . . . ;)

Friday, January 22, 2016

I hate the phrase 'Mind Palace' - my thoughts on The Abominable Bride

During my second viewing of "The Abominable Bride' I tried to mark down each time I went from liking the episode to not liking it by placing a little tick in one category or the another on a note pad.
I soon found that the categories were keeping pace with each other as I went back and forth.

This exercise had started out as an attempt to find a different way of examining the episode that may not have been done before.

Most times when we watch a TV show or movie, or for that matter, when we see a play or read a book, we find that we either like it or we don't. Many times we can still like something while finding something in it that we don't like, but still on the whole giving it more thumbs up than thumbs down.
Example for me, the first Lord of the Rings movie.

And the opposite can also be true. We can on the whole not like something while still finding something within that we do like. Example for me, The Hobbit movies.

I did not finish my second viewing with my little list of check marks. I found that once, after the first viewing, we learn the whole episode was just a trip into Sherlocks 'Mind Palace' the experiment was a waste of time.
One can hardly find fault with the episode if it is just viewed as a trip into Sherlocks unconscious mind. Most of us have had dreams that make no sense or that can be taken many different ways by whom ever may wish to interpret them. They could just be the result of a little under cooked beef or a tiny bit of mustard.
And just like with Sherlock, must of the times when we visit our 'Mind Palace', the journey ends right before we get where we really would like to see it go;)

The check list attempt actually proved rather disappointing in that for every time I was starting to like the show I would end up equally let down by some turn of event.
While one mount enjoying the dialog, the next disappointed in a flip response or an out of character turn of phrase.

In my post on Jan. 13th I asked the question; "Without a Clue, Part Deux"?  And while 'Without a Clue' at times tried to have serious side to the story most of it was clearly played for the humor.
As has often been the case with 'Sherlock', we are never clear which way it wants to lean and for me is not pulling either one off as well as I would like. 
Most times when fun or funny things happen in our lives they blend in with our 'story line'. And in most dramas when humorous occasions happen they in no way attempt to confuse the fact that we are watching a drama.
'Sherlock' is always blurring those lines in an almost slapstick kind of way. (Many may find that appealing.)
Again, the episode took place in his 'Mind Palace', so we can hardly fault it for being confusing.
Any attempt to navigate my 'Mind Palace' would be equally confusing.

I must admit that I fall into the camp of "hoping for a Victorian Sherlock Holmes tale starring Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman" to hold us over till the regular series gets filmed again. But I fear, which my be fair, that this episode left a lot not caring if the show continues, but okay if it does.
The story arc was not advanced. Mostly it was just about putting a teaser out there again, like they have been doing for the last couple of years.

There were some wonderful nods to the Canon, the Granada series and Paget drawings.
The sets were wonderful. And I was not bothered by the flash back scenes from 221B to the crime scenes. It was inventive and worked okay with that part of the story.

Much of the dialog was witty and very inventive. It was mostly appealing if you accept the story line as, once again, taking place in a 'Mind Palace'

I found the scene where Watson first finds Holmes in the morgue rather disturbing and once again seems to prove that the producers want to prove Holmes is indeed a sociopath.

I have never liked the portrayal of Moriarty in this series and believe that portrayal only adds to the sociopath explanation.

While we have come to expect a deerstalker making an appearance in most Sherlock Holmes adaptations, it does not suit the Holmes in 'Sherlock'. Something about it always looking to new or to pressed. I think it can also be said about the Iverness.

I have never considered myself a 'scholaly' Sherlockian. I don't put myself in those ranks.
I would rather find a beer connection in the canon than spend time researching find out how old the pig would have to be for the harpoon to go in so far in BLAC.
I find myself more likely to read The Strand than the Baker Street Journal.
I read the stories more for the atmosphere than for trying to add stuff to my 'Mind Palace'.
And while I am at it, I must admit that it was only after reading several other reviews that I actually caught some of the things they talked about. Many of them I agree with, some I do not.

But it was not until I watched 'Elementary' this week that I really realized what it was that I really did not like about thiss episode and in some ways 'Sherlock'.
I have come to realize that the Holmes in 'Sherlock' is not someone I would really like to meet.
I find his character a little disturbing and very borderline. Where Canonically, as well as in 'Elementary', we see the relationship between Holmes and Watson as good for one another. In 'Sherlock' I can see the relationship dragging Watson down.
Brett as Sherlock Holmes did not suffer well fools. Cumberbatch's Holmes would rather make someone feel the fool.
There is a manic quality to 'Sherlock's' Holmes that seems un-fixable or un-changable or lacking in the ability for growth. He seems damaged beyond repair many times.

It may be a product of our time, the anti-hero being the hero. The more damaged you are the more appealing you become as the hero.

As has been the case since the early episodes, The Abominable Bride was written for the fans of 'Sherlock', not the fans of Sherlock Holmes.

And although 'Mind Palace' is a historical phrase, when used as it is in 'Sherlock' it appears more Fanfic than Sherlockain.

But with all my complaints about the show, I still think Cumberbatch and Freeman are two of the best things to happen to Sherlock Holmes in a very long time. And I still enjoy the show for it's 'Playing the Game' exercise.

I do not however consider this episode to be a respectful nod to the Canon of Sherlock Holmes.

But I can only fairly give it;


To bad it wasn't Elementary:)



Wednesday, January 13, 2016

My review of 'The Abominable Bride'. . . .

is yet to come. I was, or am, looking for a way to review it that hasn't been done yet. Or at least that I have seen. Not being as great a wordsmith as most reviewers, or as I would like to be, I needed to come up with something simple, like my way of enjoying Sherlock Holmes.

So, last night as I started to watch the episode for the second time, I had a pad of paper and pencil with me and made two columns.
One column was marked 'Like' and the other 'Not liked' and each time something would change in the episode or an event would happen that to cause a reaction I would make a mark in the appropriate column for my reaction.
Some scenes the reaction would go back and forth.
About half way through the second viewing I am a little surprise that the two columns are pretty close in ticks.

In my post on Jan. 8th I tongue-in-cheek asked the question of  The Abominable Bride (can we abbrivate it 'ABOM'?) "With out a Clue, Part Deux"?  I am still leaning that way.

A couple more evenings and I should be done with my second viewing and will post the results here.

Friday, January 8, 2016

I have finally started watching 'The Abominable Bride'

I am a little over half-way through this episode and am having mixed reactions.
Parts are incredibly fun, and parts are irritably annoying.
There are some well done nods to the Canon and some that seem placed within just to get in as many as possible.
While this episode is very much a study in patience's, I am having a lot of fun following it. And by the next review we will see if we have done a very good job of.

While I have read some other reviews, I have not yet read any that have given away any spoilers. So it is all if not fresh, at least new to me.
"With out a Clue, Part Deux"?

Let the game continue.

Wednesday, January 6, 2016

On a more postive note. . .


In 1893, author Sir Arthur Conan Doyle shoved detective Sherlock Holmes off a cliff. The cliff was fictionally located in Switzerland, over the Reichenbach Falls. But Conan Doyle did the dirty work from his home in London where he wrote. “It is with a heavy heart that I take up my pen to write these the last words in which I shall ever record the singular gifts by which my friend Mr Sherlock Holmes was distinguished,” narrator Dr John Watson says in Conan Doyle’s story The Final Problem, which appeared in The Strand magazine in December 1893.
Conan Doyle himself seemed a little less emotional in private. “Killed Holmes,” he wrote in his diary. One can imagine Conan Doyle, slicked-back hair shimmering in the candlelight, twirling his ample mustache with glee. He later said of his famous character: “I have had such an overdose of him that I feel towards him as I do towards paté de foie gras, of which I once ate too much, so that the name of it gives me a sickly feeling to this day.”
The public reaction to Holmes’ death was unlike anything previously seen for fictional events.
Conan Doyle may have thought, at the time of finishing Holmes off in print, that that was that. If he did think this, he did not understand fans – particularly fans of Holmes – very well. The public reaction to the death was unlike anything previously seen for fictional events. More than 20,000 Strand readers cancelled their subscriptions, outraged by Holmes’ premature demise. The magazine barely survived. Its staff referred to Holmes’ death as “the dreadful event”.
Legend has it that young men throughout London wore black mourning crêpes on their hats or around their arms for the month of Holmes’ death, though that has recently been questioned. (Some Holmes aficionados have suggested the story could have been an exaggeration perpetuated by Conan Doyle’s son in interviews.) Outraged readers wrote to the magazine in protest: “You brute!” one letter addressed to Conan Doyle began. Americans started “Let’s Keep Holmes Alive” clubs. Conan Doyle stuck to his guns in the face of the protests, calling the death “justifiable homicide” – referring, presumably, to his own justifications, not Moriarty’s.
This sounds, of course, like just another day on the internet in 2015. But at the time, Conan Doyle had every reason to be shocked by the torrent of vitriol. Fans simply did not do this before then. (In fact, they weren’t even called “fans” yet. The term, short for “fanatic”, had only recently begun use in reference to American baseball enthusiasts.) Readers typically accepted what went on in their favourite books, then moved on. Now they were beginning to take their popular culture personally, and to expect their favourite works to conform to certain expectations. They seemed to actually expect a reciprocal relationship with the works they loved.
Fan frenzy
Sherlock Holmes’ avid readers helped to create the very modern practice of fandom. Interestingly enough, Holmes’ intense following continues to this day, spawning endless reimaginings, such as the US crime-solving series Elementary, which started its third season in November, and the BBC’s Sherlock, which returned with a highly-anticipated special on New Year’s Day, its modern-day Sherlock and Watson returning to Victorian times.
Because of Holmes, Conan Doyle was, one historian wrote, ‘as well-known as Queen Victoria’.
Holmes first appeared in 1887, in the novelette A Study in Scarlet. He was popular from the start – so popular that soon Conan Doyle began to regret having created him, since Holmes stories so completely overshadowed what Conan Doyle considered his serious work, such as his historical novel Micah Clarke. Readers lined up at newsstands for The Strand on publication day whenever a new Holmes story was to appear inside. Because of Holmes, Conan Doyle was, one historian wrote, “as well-known as Queen Victoria”.
Holmes fans were truly the emerging middle-class, the exact sort of group whose tastes would be denigrated by snooty critics as populist for more than a century to come. They were the ones priced out of concerts, the ones who had to wait for the cheaper versions of popular novels. Historian David Payne describes them as “largely the lower-middle and middle-middle classes of the cities, the non-intellectual, non-public school, hardworking, rising… people – the first true mass moderns.” The Strand targeted them with what we’d now recognise as exciting, high-concept genre stories – mysteries and science fiction – from writers such as HG Wells and Jules Verne.
The demand for Holmes stories seemed endless. The Strand would pay Conan Doyle nicely for whatever he could give them. But he hadn’t meant to spend the rest of his life inventing and solving fictional crimes. He’d meant to make some money to support his real art, novels full of what he felt were important ideas and political statements. 
In 1903 he went one step further, resurrecting Holmes with the explanation that only Moriarty had died in the fall.
By 1893, when Conan Doyle was 34, he’d had enough. He wanted to be Sir Walter Scott. So he had the evil Professor Moriarty push Holmes down the falls. It took eight years, but by 1901, however, public pressure grew so great that Conan Doyle wrote a new story, The Hound of the Baskervilles, featuring Holmes before his fall. In 1903, in The Adventure of the Empty House, he went one step further, resurrecting Holmes with the explanation that only Moriarty had died in the fall, while Holmes had faked his own death. Fans rejoiced.
Life after death
Holmes fans have only grown more obsessive since then. The only difference is that now we’re used to super-fandom. Even so, the BBC series Sherlock, in particular, has stoked the most passionate strand of Holmes fandom in some time. Fans of the show, which stars Benedict Cumberbatch as a modern-day Holmes, frequent the London sandwich shop favoured by Sherlock and his Watson (Martin Freeman), Speedy’s Café. They crowd the streets when the crew films on location, to such a point that it has caused production problems. (Nearly a thousand once showed up at the Baker Street location, which is Gower Street in real life.)
In China, fans have popularised elaborate fan fiction positing this particular Sherlock (whom they call “Curly Fu”) and Watson as a gay couple. Japanese fans pore over Sherlock manga. Korean pop group SHINee recorded a tribute song. Cumberbatch fans have their own squad name: ‘Cumberbitches’, known for their Beatles-level reactions to the dreamy star.
As a TV show, Sherlock has maintained a complicated relationship with its fans. Sometimes the producers throw in a scene to wink at fans – or in the first episode of series three, an entire episode built out of fan theories about how Sherlock faked his own death, also a callout to The Adventure of the Empty House. But the show’s co-creator, Steven Moffat, has often been dismissive of fans, while Cumberbatch uncomfortably wrote off Sherlock fan fiction as absurd. Never mind that the show itself could be considered ‘fan fiction’ based on Conan Doyle’s Victorian-age work.
I think Doyle began the idea that super-intelligence comes at the price of some kind of social dysfunction – Steven Moffat
Of course, Sherlock’s ability to cause such intense emotion among its fans is only an indication of how much they love it. What’s remarkable is that Sherlock Holmes fans have been engaging in such histrionics over the fictional detective for more than 120 years, through many, many adaptations.
Sherlock co-creator Mark Gatiss, who also plays the detective’s brother Mycroft, has credited Conan Doyle for creating characters that transcend time: “I think more than anything, what people have responded to is the fun of the show, which is so much what Doyle’s stories were actually like,” he told Al Jazeera America. “Over years and years of accumulating various versions and Victoriana, people had slightly lost sight of the fact that they’re enormous fun! They’re quick reads, they’re jolly thrilling, blood-curdling thrilling adventures and really, that’s what we wanted to do.”
Gatiss has also pointed out that Holmes is one of the original fictional detectives – most other crime-solvers created thereafter were copies of him or a direct reaction to him: “Everything onwards is people drawing a line from Sherlock and Doctor Watson. Agatha Christie does it explicitly and makes Poirot short and round as opposed to tall and lean. He needs a Watson, so she creates Captain Hastings. Everywhere you go, this is the model. That’s why it’s imperishable I think.”
Just look at the landscape of current TV heroes, many of which play on Holmes’s brilliant-but-damaged formula. “Even outside the world of detection, I think Doyle began the idea that super-intelligence comes at the price of some kind of social dysfunction, something that we’ve grasped as a narrative possibility ever since,” Moffat has said. “He’s a genius, therefore he’s a bit strange. I don’t know how often that happens in real life, but it happens a lot in fiction.”
In other words, pushing Sherlock Holmes off a cliff has no chance of killing him. He’ll always come back, in this lifetime and the next. The fans will see to it.
If you would like to comment on this story or anything else you have seen on BBC Culture, head over to our Facebook page or message us on Twitter.