Music, Pictures & Thoughts.

Norc you can use my new emoticon if you want? I think I need to use it on Petty later, but do feel free! But its not that bad surely? I mean, your poor cushions.

I'm a care worker Mrs Figgs- nobody farts like a room full of old folks- you could fart till the cows come home it wouldn't turn me green I'm afraid. That and buckie consumption over the years has destroyed most of the rest of my senses.

oh well its the thought that counts

when I was a kid this was my LOTR, I loved it, its got a bit of a post modern ironic cult status now, but its still my favourite. ( its the full film so its a bit long)

btw I meant to ask Eldo can you get Sherlock from the BBC in the States?

In the States Sherlock is shown by PBS (public television). Series two hasn't been aired here yet, but series one has been out on DVD for a while.

Doesn't BBC America show it Eldo?

Norc wrote:

Turembar wrote:Whats with the Sherlock, Norc ? Always the Sherlock, nothing but the Sherlock..... Are you a big fan of Robert Downey Jr. ?

you... you...

A little excessive in defending Mr Cumberbatch's honor, maybe?

Also, I don't think RDJ sucks, although I have preferred the BBC series ever since I was introduced to it by Petty.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Doesn't BBC America show it Eldo?

Nope. BBC America isn't real BBC though. It's partially owned by BBC Worldwide but it operates autonomously for the most part. PBS has been working with (they're listed as a co-production company in the credits of Sherlock, for instance) and licensing BBC programs since before BBC America even existed.

I'd say the Downey stuff was entertaining hokum set in London at the turn of the 1900's- but its terrible as Sherlock Holmes- depends on how you watch it- if you are a fan of the original books and stories Downey's films are terrible on that basis.

Interesting Eldo- I have never quite understood the BBC Worldwide thing with regards the BBC and more importantly the TV Licence Fee. I still don't!

Well, I've never read the books, so I had no purist leanings when I saw the Holmes movies. I didn't care for the second RDJ Holmes film though. I thought it was overblown when it came to spectacle and underdeveloped when it came to story and character. Say what you like about its differences from the original work, but the first RDJ movie had a story that worked on its own terms and characters that were (for me, anyway) immensely entertaining to watch.

As for BBC Worldwide; as I understand it, the BBC is not legally allowed to use money from the UK television license fee outside of the UK (I guess because the money comes from ordinary UK citizens). As a result, although the BBC owns BBC Worldwide outright, BBC-W operates more or less independently and has its own finances. They mostly distribute BBC programmes, but they're far from the only channel to receive get licensed shows from the main Beeb.

The money presumably though ends up back at the Beeb! I smell a tax dodge for sure.

I actually don't think RDjr sucks.. really. I just don't think it's Sherlock enough (I too haven't read the books, so maybe I don't know what I'm talking about ) but the first movie was a bit cluttered and I didn't understand the plot until the end. It is funny though, and actually, Eldo, the second one is better in fact. Very action filled, I think that's the problem, doesn't give the audience time to pick one self up and realize why they are travelling there and who they're chasing. It's entertaining, though I think it misses a bit of the Sherlocky things, like the deduction. But all in all, one cannot compare RDJ-Holmes and BBC-Holmes, cause they are two very different things and have modernised Sherlock in two very different ways. I can watch both movies (RDJ) and be entertained.

I like him as an actor, just not in that film. I think he is or was better than these blockbusters he seems to churn out.

I just don't think it's Sherlock enough (I too haven't read the books, so maybe I don't know what I'm talking about- Norc

No you do (in this case ) its not like the original books or characters except in the most superficial manner.
What Moffat and co have done is to adapt the original stories, add to them and expand them but to refocus it back to what the books were focused on- the releationship between the two principal charcaters and the mysteries, the stories.
Moffat said he thought when people tried to adapt it in traditional setting they got all caught up in the setting, carriages, foggy streets, street urchins etc- forgetting that at the time of publication that was not some romantic vision of London, that just was everyday London- Moffat wanted to retain that and by setting it now he puts London back as a character rather than as an asthetic and the focus switches back where it belongs-the charcaters, with London becoming again the field of battle on which Sherlock moves.
The opening episode of Sherlock for example has a lot from the original books- from Sherlock beating the corpse with the riding crop to see how it bruises after death to the conversation in the cab with Watson about what a Consulting Detective is- these are all adapted straight from the original stories but with some new twists and turns. Moffats, unlike the RDjnr version, is an adaptation of the books with additional material not a complete reimagining.