Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 07/17/2019 in all areas

  1. 2 points
    Congratulations! And not on this board, you're not.
  2. 2 points
    I feel that way too, but for me I think it depends on what is meant by “remake”. I really like different takes on old stories. “Ever After”, “Snow White and the Huntsman”, and the TV show “Once Upon a Time”, for example, were interesting to me in that way. I would put “Maleficent” in that category, and maybe even the 2015 “Cinderella”. Robin Hood and Sherlock Holmes have been adapted many times, but I wouldn’t call them all remakes of each other. The problem with Disney remakes like “Beauty and the Beast”, “Aladdin”, and probably “The Lion King”, is that they’re not different takes on a traditional tale; the animated versions were that. The remakes are “updated” versions of their own original take. They follow the same route, with the same lines, but it’s only done halfway. So it’s more of the same, and yet it’s not the same enough to feel like a faithful rendering. They’re in this weird limbo between strange and familiar, which is just sort of unpleasant to watch, and usually disappointing. Book adaptions can be guilty of the same thing, but at least there it makes more sense, because they have to cut and change things to fit the story into a certain timeframe. But with movie remakes, they don’t need to do that as much, because the movie already exists. They’re just “remaking” it. So if they change something you were excited to see, there seems to be no sense to it, and you’re just kind of left wondering, “Why did they change that perfectly good scene?” If they want to make an adaption, then they should just make an adaption and make it different. If they want to do a remake, then it should be virtually the same. Go one way or the other, don’t do a weird mesh of the two. Anyway, I think I’ve ranted on this subject enough, lol. Boo on remakes.
  3. 2 points
    Although I had heard of Lily (or Lillie) Langtry, I must admit that I knew very little about her, so that connection had never occurred to me. However after reading her Wikipedia page, I must say it seems quite plausible! Langtry was born on the Isle of Jersey, and Adler was born in New Jersey, both in the 1850's, both were famous stage personalities, and each was involved with a royal personage. It's interesting that when Langtry left the Isle of Jersey, she and her new husband moved to Belgravia -- I wonder if that had any influence on Moftiss's choice of episode title?
  4. 2 points
    That probably is why. My dad prefers them too and I think it’s mostly because he has no childhood nostalgia connected to the animated films. Like I said about the “Aladdin” remake, if I pretended that the animated one never existed and take it as its own thing, it’s not a bad movie. But when I was a kid, at home or in daycare, I was plopped down in front of the TV for hours at a time, usually with a choice of Disney films. They became my familiar friends, so I’m prone to be more critical of their treatment than someone who didn’t like or watch a lot of Disney as a kid. I have the experience of being on the opposite side with “Star Wars”. I didn’t love the originals and actually enjoy the prequels from the early 2000’s more, but that’s basically sacrilege, lol. I suspect any suggestion of remaking the originals would incite a riot. Or at least a furious Twitter storm. Anyway, going back to the Disney remakes, I don’t hate them all. “Cinderella” has been remade so many times that I don’t even care how they do it, lol. “Maleficent” was so different from “Sleeping Beauty”, with such a different premise, that it didn’t really feel like a remake (if in fact it was meant to be). I thought “The Jungle Book” remake was pretty well done overall, it’s probably my favorite so far. I think a live action “Hercules”, “Tarzan”, “Tangled”, or “Brave” could be good, if done right. A lot of the newer ones would lend themselves to live action better than the classics (but I realize that’s not the point). My biggest beef with the Disney remakes is that I’m just tired of remakes in general, and annoyed with them on principle because they’re lazy. I’d much rather see an original work than a remake of anything. They keep remaking the good films too, that’s the other thing. (Speaking of remakes in general now, not the Disney ones.) Instead of remaking classic films that are still great and need no improvement, why don’t they remake films that sucked and do them better?
  5. 1 point
    Having recently turned 58: I'm old!!
  6. 1 point
    Oh yeah, I was going to say something about Toy Story 4. I haven’t seen it, and probably won’t unless I catch it on TV someday when I’m bored. But I think they made a mistake by using the same characters. Toy Story 3 really wrapped up the series nicely, and it shouldn’t have been added to. It ruins what was a great, emotional ending. If they really wanted to make another Toy Story, it should have featured an entirely new set of characters.
  7. 1 point
    I've read somewhere that it's an IP thing, mostly. Disney's rights on the older Renaissance movies are about to run out apparently, meaning that anyone could then produce a cheap knock-off under the same name. So now they're doing those live-action remakes, and could then claim that their rights on those are infringed on, not the (usually much more beloved) originals. Of course, if they make a buck along the way, Disney sure won't mind.
  8. 1 point
    ... or as a substitute for creativity?
  9. 1 point
    Because Disney is using nostalgia as a quick cash grab?
  10. 1 point
    I ain't riding with no rabbit that's too short to see over the steering wheel!
  11. 1 point
  12. 1 point
    I imagine it's relevant only if you want it to be.
  13. 1 point
    Is that really relevant, though? Once a performance is recorded, it's potentially immortal.
  14. 1 point
    That's a tad unkind. I don't know the full story of how we got what we did. But we do know they had to leave the story in a sensible place: in case it was over forever, of if they do decide to go back to it. I thought it was the most exciting TV I have ever seen, I loved the ride. Yet the personal touches were my favourite: Sherlock virtually declaring John as more of a brother to him than Mycroft, then almost immediately regretting it...when he learns what Mycroft has had to carry alone, all those years. I love Sherlock reaching out to Eurus, healing her through music and restoring her to the family. Even the Redbeard twist...lovely. Most of all I love being left with the boys going back out on their adventures...what's not to like?
  15. 1 point
    I remember being infatuated with some of the girls I knew when I was in my early teens. Don't think there was anything sexual about it, I just desperately wanted to be their friend -- but alas they never seemed to notice me. John has had far better luck, thank goodness!
  16. 1 point
    I think people can be infatuated by their friends, only, with sexual attraction removed from the equation, it becomes 'hero worship.' That's what I'd call it. John's admiration is not lascivious, but it is constant and complete. Even when the two are squabbling, Watson stands in awe of his friend's gifts and marvels at them, and in some part of himself strives to be more like Holmes. It's a platonic love affair that's been going on since 1880.
  17. 1 point
    I agree. Canon Watson has that epiphany fairly late after they have already been friends for years. The way he describes Holmes, I am not surprised. He isn't sociopathic in the original by any means, but very cool and reserved. The great heart is pretty well hidden behind the great brain. I think Canon Watson is way more emotionally intelligent than our John though. He might have caught on sooner. I don't blame John for assuming Sherlock didn't care about him so very much. If someone put on a big show pretending to kill himself before my eyes and didn't tell me the truth until after two years, I would probably conclude that the person in question wasn't too concerned with my feelings or wellbeing. And I would consider them a sociopath too.
  18. 1 point
    I think canon Watson is kind of that way, though. There's the scene in Three Garridebs where the perp shoots Watson, who seems surprised by the intensity of Holmes's reaction -- both his ferocity toward the perp and then his solicitude toward the injured Watson.
  19. 1 point
    Considering how tersely and obliquely she was written out of stories: ... he had learned of my own sad bereavement, and his sympathy was shown in his manner rather than in his words. "Work is the best antidote to sorrow, my dear Watson," said he,.... ... it's my opinion that "Continuity" Doyle had forgotten all about Watson's wife until his editor said hey, Watson can't just move right back in with Holmes -- he's a married man! So yeah, in the end he killed her off for the reason you stated. But I suspect "The Empty House" had already been written before he even realized that she needed to be dealt with.
  20. 1 point
    Yeah, I get why "assassin" Mary isn't popular. I've said a few times that I like Mary's personality, but think her job (former job?) is ridiculous. Sort of the same way I feel about Irene, actually. (Look! Back on topic! ) But I still would have liked to have had her around longer, if only so I would have felt more when she was finally taken from us. As it is, I just found her death rather annoying. Not exactly the reaction the Moftisses were going for, one presumes.
  21. 1 point
    True. I was watching a program about Senator John McCain last night, and they were relating excerpts from his biography and interviewing other men who had been prisoners of war (and tortured). They all agreed it would be better to commit suicide than to "betray" their country by breaking under torture. What a horrible, desperate situation to be in. It was hard to watch. But taken in the context of the show (which, to me, is the only context that's relevant) I think that line is mostly about Sherlock realizing that how he behaves, what he does, etc., affects other people. He can't, in good conscience, continue to go through this world as if he's the only one in it who matters, and still claim the title of "best friend". Compare that to his attitude in TEH, when he seems utterly surprised that faking his death hurt John's feelings. I don't know, I just think TLD is a beautiful episode. It reaches me on some level that I really appreciate; it's one of my all-time favorites. YMMV, naturally.
  22. 1 point
    I'm not sure he would have taken the drugs if they hadn't been part of his "plan" to "save" John. His words at the end (paraphrase: "my life has a value") indicate (to me) that he finally understands that what he does, affects others too, not just himself. Those words (and others) also indicate to me that he'd contemplated suicide during at least one point in his life. The whole episode, to me, is a refutation of the idea that suicide is an acceptable solution to one's problems. But then again, he might have taken the drugs to ease his own pain. I think we were meant to believe it was some of both. I also think we're meant to believe Sherlock knows his body's limits ... or thinks he does ... and "knew" he'd survive the experience. He's rather an idiot in that regard. At any rate, wasn't he already talking to Ella about how to help John before he got the message from Mary? I take her message to be more than "Sherlock, save John," it was more about how to do it. Because she figured she knew more about John than Sherlock does. Wives tend to think that way about their husbands, I hear. I agree that Sherlock probably would have come to the same conclusion himself, but after seeing Mary's message, he's also obligated to obey her dying wish. Annnd .... we're in the wrong thread, aren't we? Rats. Um.... Irene also seemed to think she knew his body's limits. Which just proves to me that all drug users are idiots. There, back on track. And why does the spellcheck think that entire sentence is misspelled? And where did this white line below my text come from? What the hey?
  23. 1 point
    I don't entirely disagree with that, in spite of my misgivings about what the "explanation" of the fall does to the story. I was just wondering if that was the hero moment you were thinking of. I sort of agree with Toby's pick ... as much as I loathe the solution to the problem of CAM, I do think it was a moment of self-sacrifice on Sherlock's part. He gave in to savagery to protect his loved ones; in a twisted way, I can see that as heroic as well. But I think I'd choose the moment when he tosses Faith's gun into the river in TLD, with that fantastic line about "Your life is not your own." He's acknowledging that life can be painful and hard, but you live it anyway ... not because you want to , but because other people need you to. I find that pretty selfless, and ... especially coming from someone like Sherlock Holmes ... I find selflessness pretty dang heroic. It's a quiet moment, but a big step forward for him. ETA: I think the moment he chose to (literally!) embrace Eurus instead of rejecting her was pretty heroic too. He didn't have to be nice to her to get what he wanted from her at that point ... but he was. Good boy. I think I'll keep him.
  24. 1 point
    The "Angst" (it's so funny to use this word in English; it's actually German and means plain old fear) still makes plenty of sense to me even considering what we learned in The Empty Hearse - or rather I can still make plenty of sense of it. When we saw The Reichenbach Fall, we thought Sherlock was truly contemplating death or some other kind of total ruin at the hands or Moriarty. Now we know that he and Mycroft actually had a plan very early on and that many of the upsetting events we witnessed were anticipated. But this also means that all along, Sherlock must have been fully aware that he was lying to everyone around him and also that he might have to use John as a witness for a fake suicide and that he would have to play dead for a while, leave London and live on the run in secrecy. He might have been more confident that he could take Moriarty down than he let on, but he must have been very aware of the price he needed to pay for that. Now, I don't "ship" our boys as a romantic couple, but I am of the opinion that most of what happens in the series and especially Sherlock's behavior makes more sense if we assume that the one with John is Sherlock's primary relationship. People who called them a couple during the first two series weren't completely wrong, they were just assuming there was a sexual side to the partnership whereas we can, I think, be 99,9% sure there wasn't and never will be. But this does not mean it didn't exist. Between The Hounds of Baskerville and The Reichenbach Fall, Sherlock was actually in a very good place. I don't know what his life was like before, but there are hints that it left plenty to be desired, that he was on drugs for a while, had almost no friends and no place to call a home in the true sense of the word. It's very likely that being at Baker St, clean, under Mrs Hudson's loving care and John's loyal companionship, with plenty of casework, a working alliance with the police via Lestrade and a rising reputation, our hero was probably as happy as he'd ever been for a long while. And then he realized that in order to win against Moriarty, he would have to give all that up. And he's smart enough to anticipate all possible consequences of such a sacrifice. Plus he has just enough heart to feel badly about being such a complete dickhead to the first and for a long time only friend in his life. And the Angst is still there when he returns. Mycroft is talking about terrorist threats and Sherlock goes: "what about John Watson?" He doesn't seem to give a F*** about nutcases blowing up London, but it is highly relevant to him whether John is still around and whether there's any kind of chance that they can pick up where they left off two years ago. Actually, if you look at things this way, his behavior towards Molly in that last lovely scene where he comes to her for help makes more sense as well. He didn't need her for the corpse. He could have gotten that from anybody, Mycroft could have made it appear somehow, he could have worked around it entirely. He needed one person with whom he could be honest. One friend whom he was not going to have to betray, who would not be trying to "move on" from him while he was away, but who would wait and love and welcome him back someday for sure. I think he also needed someone to just be vulnerable with. Even Sherlock must need that sometimes. And I'm sure it's easier for him to admit he's "not okay" to her than to John - let alone to Mycroft.
  25. 1 point
    And it harks back to "A Study in Pink" when Sherlock is deducing John's phone. He says something along the lines...."He left her....if she had left him he would have kept it. They do you know, sentiment." And then here he is, asking to keep Irene Adler's phone....sentiment indeed.
  • Newsletter

    Want to keep up to date with all our latest news and information?

    Sign Up

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of UseWe have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.Privacy PolicyGuidelines.