Questions about Sherlock

[T.o.b.y]

We'll get a lot more insight here when we see him with Mary!

[T.o.b.y]

Continuing to give answers to question No 5:

 

All in all, Sherlock seems to be very closely drawn from the original Holmes. There is just a lot of added depth. They seem to have taken hints from the stories and expanded on them. For example, the one expression "shaken to the soul" in "The Hound of the Baskervilles" becomes Sherlock's spectacular nervous breakdown in The Hounds of Baskerville.

 

There are a few differences, though. First of all, Holmes is a lot more self-assured. He gets more positive attention from the police. Even though he is somewhat acerbic with the officers at times, there is none of the antagonism we see with Donovan or Anderson.

 

Then, the original Holmes is somewhat, well, "warmer". I know Watson calls him "man of iron" and describes his voice as "cold", but Holmes' actions and words tell a different story. He shows affection quite openly for his friend and is much kinder to him than Sherlock is to John. He is also more patient with his (often distressed and female) clients, using his "hypnotic" personality to calm them down and make them tell their story collectedly instead of unsettling them further by telling them they're "boring" or inhaling their cigarette smoke while they're relating traumatic experiences or yelling accusations at them just so they'll speak faster. Holmes' humor is ironic, but not bitter and sarcastic like Sherlock's.

 

Holmes has interests besides his work, like going to the opera. He also quotes Goethe and Shakespeare repeatedly, meaning he's read books which don't provide more input on solving crimes than knowledge about the solar system. I think Conan Doyle was inconsistent with the character there and am glad they decided to go with the concept of "no superfluous data in my brain, please".

 

 

 

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

 

There are a few differences, though. First of all, Holmes is a lot more self-assured. He gets more positive attention from the police. Even though he is somewhat acerbic with the officers at times, there is none of the antagonism we see with Donovan or Anderson.

 

   Early on, Moffit and Gatiss pointed out that is Sherlock is much younger then what we are used to. He still has a lot of growing up and maturing to do that is why he is less polished then the Holmes of Rathbone, Lee, or Cushing but it will come in time and maybe Season Three will be the beginning of all that.

[Carol the Dabbler]

I think we've already seen Sherlock mature somewhat in Series 2, and I expect to see that trend continue -- though probably in fits and starts.

 

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

 

we've already seen Sherlock mature somewhat in Series 2, and I expect to see that trend continue -- though probably in fits and starts.

 

  Especially in "The Reichenbach Falls".

[T.o.b.y]

he is less polished then the Holmes of Rathbone, Lee, or Cushing but it will come in time and maybe Season Three will be the beginning of all that.

 

Forgive me my ignorance, but who are they?

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

 Basil Rathbone, Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing all played very mature, very self assured and adult Sherlock Holmes. You can find clips of their movies on Youtube.

[T.o.b.y]

Don't you think it's going to be difficult as the series progresses to create a distinctive "Sherlock" version of Holmes at his prime when there have already been so many? Without going too far away from the source?

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

Not at all. Basil Rathbone played a very World War l Holmes. While Lee and Cushing were more Victorian, they traveled all over the place. I think that is what makes each interpretation so lively and entertaining. The writers and producers are able to put him almost anywhere, and he is still Sherlock Holmes.

[T.o.b.y]

You're right, Sherlock does seem to realize that John is touched by any slight kindness on his part (and/or feels obligated to offer positive reinforcement) -- and uses that knowledge to pull John's strings.  He does a similar thing at the end of "Scandal in Belgravia," when he uses the word "Please" to effectively demand that John give him Irene's phone.

 

From "The Man with the Twisted Lip": "It was difficult to refuse any of Sherlock Holmes’ requests, for they were always so exceedingly definite, and put forward with such a quiet air of mastery".

 

I guess in this context, "I should recommend you also to send a note by the cabman to your wife to say that you have thrown in your lot with me", is supposed to be mean "tell her you're not coming home for as long as I need your assistance". And this latter bit, I suspect, could very well become modern Sherlock's attitude towards John's marriage: he's very welcome to it as long as it does not get in the way of any of Sherlock's plans or threatens his convenience.

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

What's that saying that Sherlock has....."Come at once, if convenient. If inconvenient, come anyway" ? or something along those lines.

[T.o.b.y]

I think that's exactly what he says... One of my favorites (thank goodness we don't have a favorite quotes thread - I'm sure that after a few weeks, you could find the entire dialogue from all episodes in there).

[Carol the Dabbler]

For sure!  And that's another Sherlock canon reference as well:

 

From Conan Doyle's "Adventure of the Creeping Man":

 

It was one Sunday evening early in September of the year 1903 that I received on of Holmes' laconic messages:  "Come at once if convenient -- if inconvenient come all the same. -- S. H."

 

In "A Study in Pink," the "laconic message" has become two text messages, sent in rapid succession (from Ariane DeVere's transcript):

 

Baker Street.
Come at once
if convenient.
SH

 

If inconvenient,
come anyway.
SH

 

.

[T.o.b.y]

Thank you so much! I haven't read that one yet - I just had a feeling those texts must have been in the original.

[Carol the Dabbler]

I knew we had seen the original quote (and chuckled at it) in the Jeremy Brett adaptation, but I had to search Wikiquotes to see which story it was in.

 

[T.o.b.y]

Another difference between Sherlock and Doyle's Holmes is that the original character, even though Watson often mentions his "somber spirit", is often described as having a "mischievous twinkle" in his eyes. He has an immense sense of humor and pokes fun not only at the police, his clients or his flatmate, but at himself as well. Now, can you imagine Sherlock having a laugh at his own expense? He'd have to mature an awful lot first...

[Carol the Dabbler]

T.o.b.y, am I remembering correctly, that you've never seen any adaptations of Holmes other than Sherlock?  You might want to check out the Jeremy Brett series sometime.  It's not 100% faithful to the stories, but darn close, differing mostly for what I take to be "television morality" reasons.  A lot of times, the dialog is word for word -- though Brett didn't like Holmes having such an overwhelming majority of it, and had some bits rewritten for Watson.

 

I think you'd like the mischievous twinkle in Brett's eye!

 

[T.o.b.y]

Yes, maybe I should rethink my childish aversion to adaptations of favorite books.

 

The differences between Sherlock and the original characters don't bother me one bit though. I just like to notice and babble about them, to wonder whether they were conscious artistic choices and if so, why. 

 

The problem with most adaptations is that they merely illustrate the text (thus irritating me, because my mind of course has drawn it's own illustrations while reading), often simplifying it in the process and rarely adding anything new that I care for. "Sherlock" kindly offers an interpretation of Doyle's work rather than an adaptation, actually adding complexity and depth (not difficult to do with Doyle...) and creating a world of it's own that leaves the original image intact.

 

I don't miss anything with Sherlock. If I want to spend an hour with the old sleuth of the twinkling eyes and the soothing manner, I pick up a book. Still, I really shouldn't say "no, I won't like that" in advance to other interpretations of him. After all, that's what I said about "Sherlock" before I'd seen it.

[sherlockandjohn]

 

Our modern Sherlock, on the other hand, is so oblivious of anybody's needs but his own that when he does appear to want to do John any small favor, John has no idea what to make of it and is slightly embarrassed. Which, for example, leads him to drink horrible over-sweetened coffee that was meant to be drugged into the bargain. Every time I see him taking that cup I want to yell at him: you sucker! 

 

  I have the same reaction. Sherlock is so manipulative! Hehe! The lab experiment on John in 'Hounds' takes the price for me. When I see Sherlock talking into the microphone, monitoring John in the lab, I collapse! "Keep talking. Tell me what you're seeing". The look on Sherlock's face... if I didn't know any better, I'd say just a small part of him enjoyed it

[sherlockandjohn]

 

1- what do you think of Sherlock ?

 

2- what do you think of Sherlock's relationship with Watson

 

3- do you think that Sherlock believes in God ? 

 

I'll only answer the above questions, as I have not seen any other adaption than the BBC Sherlock, nor have I read ACD's books. Yet!

 

1. My favorite ways to describe him is 'emotionally complex' and 'driven by logic and reason rather than feelings'. He is very compelling to me in the show, and those who give him an honest chance (or rather many chances) and don't let his arrogance annoy them, or his brilliance scare them away, are sometimes lucky enough to gain his friendship. He is really an extraordinarily good man - or he becomes it. He does so many wonderful things. The sad part for most people is that they are too quickly put off by his lack of sensitivity. Most people, like myself, are offended to some degree when we meet such a character.

 

2. It's the heart of the show! It's mainly through their relationship that we get to know Sherlock's character in full. Without John, Sherlock easily comes off as arrogant and inconsiderate, and while he is those things, he is much more. I love how they risk their lives for each other, and accept each other unconditionally, though they argue, of course :-) Their friendship is inspiring and moving.

 

3. I wouldn't think so, based on these factors: 1) In 'ASiB' he says: "People don't really go to Heaven when they die. They are taken into a special room and burned". 2) In my experience, most scientists (and Sherlock is that) can't unite scientific evidence with a belief in God - at least not the God that's depicted in the Bible.

[T.o.b.y]

3. I wouldn't think so, based on these factors: 1) In 'ASiB' he says: "People don't really go to Heaven when they die. They are taken into a special room and burned". 2) In my experience, most scientists (and Sherlock is that) can't unite scientific evidence with a belief in God - at least not the God that's depicted in the Bible.

 

 

Another example of how "Sherlock" updated the character to match modern sensibilities and views just like Holmes was (in my opinion) bent to suit a late Victorian audience. The original certainly believed in God - he even utters a spontaneous prayer of thanks in at least one situation:

 

"Sir Henry lay insensible where he had fallen. We tore away his collar, and Holmes breathed a prayer of gratitude when we saw that there was no sign of a wound and that the rescue had been in time."

 

Although, in "The Valley of Fear", Holmes' comment on Watson assuming he uses the bible is somewhat ambiguous:

 

“So we have contracted our field of search to a large book, printed in double columns and in common use.”

“The Bible!” I cried triumphantly.

“Good, Watson, good! But not, if I may say so, quite good enough! Even if I accepted the compliment for myself I could hardly name any volume which would be less likely to lie at the elbow of one of Moriarty’s associates"

 

[BlueTiger]

/>/>/>

Now, can you imagine Sherlock having a laugh at his own expense? He'd have to mature an awful lot first...

He WOULD have to mature an awful lot, but that's why I think it's cool that they started this Sherlock young. This is Sherlock before he learned to subdue his ego and behave bearably. He has this raging genius, but he doesn't have much wisdom. Or any.

 

Moftiss have mused about how great it would be if the show goes on for decades and we get to see John and Sherlock as 50-something men still solving crimes together. I think that would be wonderful, but especially if we get to see Sherlock gradually grow into a grownup, and a better person. Remember: "Sherlock Holmes is a great man. And someday, if we're very very lucky, he might even be a good one."

[Carol the Dabbler]

Moftiss have mused about how great it would be if the show goes on for decades and we get to see John and Sherlock as 50-something men still solving crimes together. I think that would be wonderful....

 

I agree that would be wonderful -- but I keep wondering why Moftiss are setting their sights so low.  How about sixty-something or beyond, just as long as everyone's still having fun?

 

[Ruthyone]

1- what do you think of Sherlock ? I liked Jeremy Brett's version and I love Benedict's even more because of the modern update.



2- what do you think of Sherlock's relationship with Watson and how do you compare their relationship to

the original ones ?  It's a younger relationship and more of a friendly one than previous versions.



3- do you think that Sherlock believes in God ?  No, he thinks about the cases in hand - he will deal with anything like that when it comes along.



4- how do you compare Sherlock to the rest of the adoptions of Sherlock Holmes ? I like it very much.



5- how do you compare Sherlock to the ORIGINAL Sherlock Holmes ?  I think the adaptation is fresh and new.
 

[TeylaHolmes]

1. I think it's awesome and Love how they still compare it to the original 

 

2. I think it's great and that they are the same in some areas. Like the mustache scenes lol

 

3. I don't know

 

4. They both are funny 

 

5. They both have some same story line.