Join 3,552 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


It's a three patch problem Watson.
August 2, 2010 3:43 AM   Subscribe

Sherlock Holmes is running around modern day London. Airing Sundays on BBC1, The BBC has reinvented the master dectective and his sidekick for 2010. Sherlock is cast as a modern day "high functioning sociopath" while Watson is a former army doctor with PSTD returned from Afghanistan. It has been written and created by Doctor Who writers Mark Gatiss and Steven Moffat. Reviews are in and the update is a stellar success. The series has been sold worldwide, however UK viewers can watch with BBC iplayer. Rumor has it that those unwilling to wait for release can find alternative sources for viewing.
posted by Funmonkey1 (118 comments total) 38 users marked this as a favorite

 
Moffat does it again. I could do without the digital-visual gimmickry, the back-alley race to catch the cab is almost an exact duplicate of a similar race in the recent "Sherlock Holmes" movie, and Watson's action at the end of the piece is morally dubious, but -- damn -- it's fun. Mycroft is fantastic. The "is he gay or not?" conversation is priceless. It's a grand updating, and if I were to measuring it against the Robert Downey version, I'd give Moffat's the edge.
posted by Faze at 3:53 AM on August 2, 2010


I was, um, forced to watch this monstrosity of a 'reboot' last night. The acting beats you over the head in the same manner as 'new' Doctor Who and then shamelessly throws in a complete duplicate of the fast-cut visualisation-of-Holmes'-mental-processes plot device from the 2009 film.

Thanks, but I'm still watching the Jeremy Brett Holmes, and it's still untouchable. On the other hand, I think this one will look dated by next year.
posted by le morte de bea arthur at 3:53 AM on August 2, 2010 [7 favorites]


I would very much like to see this.
posted by Sticherbeast at 3:53 AM on August 2, 2010


Alternative sources? The game is afoot!
posted by nestor_makhno at 4:01 AM on August 2, 2010 [4 favorites]


The second episode stumbled a bit, pivoting on Orientalism in a manner which makes perfect sense given the source material but is very dated and poorly adapted to modern television. A little more work could have made this contemporary but instead, we have a generic Asian mishmash better suited to a century ago.
posted by mek at 4:09 AM on August 2, 2010 [4 favorites]


I very much preferred this one to last week's instalment. Last week's really annoyed me with just how stupid Sherlock was in regards to the killer's profession. self link to avoid spoilering here.

I liked the SMS on screen thing, but I agree that the GPS thing in the car chase was annoying. Partly because the map didn't have any correlation to the area they were meeting in.

Also, if I remember right that they waited for the killed by 22 Northumberland Road, that curve in the road would imply they were sat in the Sherlock Holmes pub. Which is all rather irrelevant seeing as how it was filmed in Cardiff, but never mind...
posted by sodium lights the horizon at 4:13 AM on August 2, 2010


Post Syndromic Traumication Disorder
posted by DU at 4:15 AM on August 2, 2010 [2 favorites]


So far, I'm loving it.
posted by seanyboy at 4:16 AM on August 2, 2010


Also - The SMS onscreen thing is genius. All programmes should use this device as it gets rid of the usual "closeup of an old mobile phone with big wording" thing.
posted by seanyboy at 4:17 AM on August 2, 2010 [2 favorites]


I don't understand... isn't Holmes the bad boy doctor who doesn't play by the rules?

Do I have my TV series confused again?
posted by indubitable at 4:18 AM on August 2, 2010 [4 favorites]


I agree with everything that le morte de bea arthur said, except that I thought those were good things.

I've only seen the first episode but, basically, it's everything that I hoped Dr Who was going to be. Watching an extremely bright misfit run around having an adventure, solving a mystery and just generally outwitting everyone around him. Really tremendous fun, and without the constant re-explaining of plot points for the kids that slows Dr Who down. As a further bonus, while Dr Who's genius relies a lot on pulling "timey-wimey" secret knowledge out of nowhere, the first episode's solution (at least, the profession) was solvable by anyone watching; if anything it was a bit too easy, but I guess it's difficult to judge these things.

Holmes is entertaining (although his obtuseness is a bit overdone, I'll admit), Dr Watson is very likable and the supporting cast worked well. The bad guys are satisfyingly creepy too, so I have high hopes for the longer story arc.
posted by metaBugs at 4:24 AM on August 2, 2010 [2 favorites]


I love the text that shows up on screen.

SPOILER

I found it really hard to accept that nobody suspected the cabbie. Around the time I graduated high school, there were a number of murders in my city, and the police believed they were serial killings committed by a taxi driver. But I don't think people without that background would have missed the fact that the GPS showed the phone was at the building at the same time the cab pulled up. The old Sherlock would have been all over that shit.
posted by robcorr at 4:42 AM on August 2, 2010


This is the first I've heard of this show. As excited as I am to watch it, robcorr's post is too much spoiler in this thread. I never expected to see a spoiler, and by the time I saw the word in caps I also saw whodunnit. I'm sure you didn't mean it, robcorr, but the post just wasn't set off enough from the rest to avoid spoilage. Could a mod at least edit it with a page of space between the heading and the spoiler itself? Thanks.
posted by monkeymadness at 4:47 AM on August 2, 2010


I'm really enjoying it so far. I liked the first episode more than the second, but both were fun and witty and made me want more.

Does anyone know, is this a full series or just a 3-episode thing for now?
posted by ukdanae at 4:47 AM on August 2, 2010


Rare video of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle in which he says how he got the idea for Sherlock Holmes (and talks about his psychic experiences). Plus, you meet his dog.
posted by Obscure Reference at 5:09 AM on August 2, 2010 [6 favorites]


The Holmes - Doctor Who comparison is apt, but it should go in the other direction. The Doctor was inspired by the Conan Doyle character (remember him?), and the Companion will always just be a pretty Watson.
posted by Faze at 5:10 AM on August 2, 2010 [2 favorites]


I agree with robcorr. I think the little details of deduction are brilliant, like how he identifies an alcoholic from his mobile phone. But Holmes seems a bit obtuse at solving the actual crimes. I'm usually pretty poor at guessing whodunnit, but even I was practically shouting "THE KILLER IS ------!" at the screen for the first episode, and a crucial part of the second episode was obvious too.

I do like the way it changes the environment but still stays true to the characters though. As an arrogant, easily-bored near-junkie, Holmes seems a lot more like the character in the books than in most adaptations.

Overall, it's pretty good, just hope they toughen up the mysteries a bit.
posted by TheophileEscargot at 5:12 AM on August 2, 2010


I could only tolerate about ten minutes of the Ritchie version of "Holmes" because it was so blatantly unfaithful to the original text. New plots are fine, but I prefer when the characters are true to how they were originally written. I've only seen the first episode of this new series, but I really enjoyed the many subtle references to the original stories: the papers stuck to the mantelpiece with a knife, Holmes testing a theory about postmortem bruising by beating a corpse because an alibi depends on it, the mention of the fact that Holmes has an extensive knowledge of the streets of London, etc. The writing was carefully done, and it shows. The fact that the adaptation is to modern times means that classic catchphrases like "the game is afoot" would make Sherlock sound anachronistic were he to speak them straight. I thought "the game is on" was a perfect substitute. The only problem I have is that I keep expecting one of those glances at the camera that Tim from The Office always gave. But overall it's very well cast, well written, and a fun way to extend the stories to a new audience while failing to irritate those who love the original Holmes.
posted by tractorfeed at 5:12 AM on August 2, 2010 [4 favorites]


Moffat kind of irritated me in a recent-ish interview when he said something along the lines of "well, it's possible that Holmes might be gay, but he would never be gay for Watson." Bzuh? With what other man has Holmes canonically ever had anything even close to a normal human relationship? Lestrade? Maybe he is envisioning some wild hate!sex with Moriarity, idk.

HAHA WAIT maybe Moffat somehow thinks this will stop the internets from writing Holmes/Watson porns. Oh Steven, you poor deluded fool.
posted by elizardbits at 5:21 AM on August 2, 2010 [4 favorites]


This is just a cynical appropriation of an old brand name by a brain dead, creatively bankrupt BBC. Its the TV version of Hollywood's ongoing raid of 1980s TV schedules (A-Team?) for bankable brands. I lasted about 40 seconds of it. Glossy, cheap, as predictable and basic as a knock knock joke and already dated. Somehow I doubt that Holmes' Victorian enthusiasm for narcotics will not survive either in these PC beige times. This tragic article from Peter Dukes in Prospect is the best account of why British TV really, really REALLY sucks these days. The BBC is a BIG part of the problem. At least in the days of Thames and Lew Grade ITV had excellent, exportable stuff too that has aged brilliantly. Just was watching Fassbinder's World on a Wire (Welt am Dracht) last night on DVD. Somehow I doubt that this new Holmes, Dr. Poo, or any of the newer UK TV series will be watched in any form in 4 years time, much less 40.
posted by The Salaryman at 5:23 AM on August 2, 2010


Economist: The peculiar rage inspired by the BBC.
Here is a curious paradox about British conservatives. Challenge them to defend grand British institutions, from the Royal Family to the House of Lords or the lack of a written constitution, and they argue passionately about the dangers of tampering and meddling with things that evolved organically over time. They will talk about the British genius of leaving well alone. Perhaps you would not start from here, they may concede, and parts of our system may look a bit odd to outsiders, even extravagantly so. But these fragile accretions work rather well, they say, and would not survive piecemeal attempts to reform and tweak them. If it ain't broke, in other words, don't fix it.

And yet, get the same British conservatives onto the subject of the BBC, and they turn into wild-eyed Jacobins, yearning to punish and slash and burn and stick the heads of senior BBC staff on spikes...

...the outrage is out of proportion to the sins of the BBC. Take a step back, and the BBC is not broken. I would argue it is the best broadcaster in the world: and thus on the rather short list of British things that are the best in the world.
posted by TheophileEscargot at 5:30 AM on August 2, 2010 [23 favorites]


yes. i'm the one who sits with a puzzled look on her face & says, 'what'd they say? what'd they say?' when everyone laughs at a monty python joke. or a hushed plot sequence in i, claudius. or the subtleties of an upstairs, downstairs episode. am i the only one who has a hard time understanding britspeak? although i didn't seem to have the same problem with benny hill or mr. bean.
posted by msconduct at 5:32 AM on August 2, 2010


Moffat's episode was fantastic. Did anyone notice that Gatiss's episode had no character overlap other than Holmes and Watson? Did they write in parallel? As a series, this made the second episode much more weak, but it was still quite fun.
posted by honest knave at 5:34 AM on August 2, 2010


Interesting article, TheophileEscargot, but I'm not sure what it has to do with the post. Not particularly liking one particular BBC programme (for specific reasons) isn't quite the same as criticising of the BBC as an institution.
posted by le morte de bea arthur at 5:36 AM on August 2, 2010


Does anyone know, is this a full series or just a 3-episode thing for now?

I believe it's just the three for now, although a followup is a definite possibility (depending on ratings, I suppose).

Me, I loved the first episode. Purists, obviously, are going to be appalled by the modern setting and other changes to the original characters/stories, but I like seeing the basic elements of the Holmes mythos applied to today's police procedural. And the onscreen text thing letting the viewer "see" what Holmes is seeing -- that device works well in a modern version.

Having never watched any of the "Mentalist"/"Lie to Me" shows that feature hyperobservant detectives in the Holmes mold, I'd be interested to know how "Sherlock" compares to those series.
posted by Pants McCracky at 5:36 AM on August 2, 2010


am i the only one who has a hard time understanding britspeak?

Oi, assa bravver cant ya? Pie me rubitaddin longo in the wit, she says da gravvers can pink a tickle frathoms, know what I mean?
posted by Greg Nog at 5:37 AM on August 2, 2010 [4 favorites]


TheophileEscargot - I LOVE the BBC. I would pay my licence fee for Radio 4 alone. Most of its UK attackers are Daily Mail curtain twitchers with a reactionary agenda ('Sachsgate' being treated like a national scandal for example). The BBC represents 90% of media consumption in my house.

But its monolithic commissioning structure and post-Dyke mega dumbing down is pretty indefensible in artistic or economic terms. I urge you to read that Peter Jukes article (I wrote Dukes. Must have had Hunter S. Thompson on the brain). Its in a bad way. Here's an example of that dumbed down attitude that gives us Ashes to Ashes rather than The Wire. One of the chief execs wants to erase the very idea of subtext:

"Last year Ben Stephenson’s predecessor Jane Tranter, who until recently was BBC controller of fiction (yes, all BBC fiction), gave a speech about drama at the Royal Television Society awards. She spoke of the role of the executive: “In the modern world of endless media possibilities we can help a drama to succeed by encouraging it to be succinct, to declare its intent, to make its premise clear… ensuring that the heart of the drama is not only true, but is not opaquely or perversely hidden.” I came across her speech as I was reading Stephen Greenblatt’s essay on Hamlet, which demonstrates how Shakespeare added a “wilful obscurity” to the original tragedy to increase its emotional power and depth. I couldn’t help feeling Tranter’s stand was a misunderstanding of what drama is, what a writer does, and what the audience wants.

If writers knew in advance, with no opacity or perversity, what the true heart of a drama was, they wouldn’t bother to write it. If this principle of “making the premise clear” had been applied to The Singing Detective or Edge of Darkness, let alone Twin Peaks or Lost, none of them would have been made. More importantly, if the audience is held by the hand and told where they are going, they will go elsewhere, abandoning the programmatic and obvious for the unpredictable, dark hearts of Tony Soprano or David Simon’s Baltimore."
posted by The Salaryman at 5:39 AM on August 2, 2010 [16 favorites]


honest knave, i also noticed that and wondered about it. To me, it was pretty jarring, as I really enjoyed the first set of police characters and their rapport with Sherlock.
posted by ukdanae at 5:39 AM on August 2, 2010


Rare video of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

Judging by the first couple seconds of that video, Conan Doyle was a seemingly simple cellular automaton. If we can just figure out the rules, we should be able to recreate as many copies of him (and his dog) as we like.
posted by pracowity at 5:42 AM on August 2, 2010


I really enjoyed the first episode, and it's been pointed out that it was a very loose adaptation of the first Sherlock Holmes story, A Study in Scarlett.

The pills, the writing on the floor, the cab driver etc...

Knowing that made me like it even more.
posted by DanCall at 5:51 AM on August 2, 2010


am i the only one who has a hard time understanding britspeak?

Just about any British movie or TV show, I have to have subtitles on, at least in the beginning. After about an hour, though, I get used to the accents. It's kind of a weird feeling to be faced with speech that I can't make out at all, but which still registers as English.
posted by Pants McCracky at 5:51 AM on August 2, 2010 [1 favorite]


So, it's like House, but about a detective?
posted by l33tpolicywonk at 5:59 AM on August 2, 2010 [14 favorites]


Mrs Mutant & I are enjoying it so far. Great to see parts of our 'hood in the pilot, and The City in last nights episode (I used to work right across the street from the glass and steel building where the bank & trading floor were located).

One question though - why did they structure the series as three, ninety minute episodes, rather than an initial pilot (maybe ninety minutes), then followed by three one hour episodes or other such variant?
posted by Mutant at 6:14 AM on August 2, 2010


I can think of two possible reasons for that: 1) it's easier to tell a more fleshed-out story in 90 minutes than try to compress it into 60 or drag it out to 120 (and have it feel like it drags)... and 2) 90 minutes of commercial-free BBC programming expands nicely to a 2-hour TV movie with commercials for the US market.
posted by hippybear at 6:18 AM on August 2, 2010


greg nog: what'd you say? what'd you say?

*cries*
posted by msconduct at 6:18 AM on August 2, 2010 [1 favorite]


Funny. After watching the Guy Ritchie Holmes film I told my wife, "It's like Robert Downey, Jr as Dr Who." Which I maintain would be awesome.
posted by grubi at 6:28 AM on August 2, 2010


Oi, assa bravver cant ya? Pie me rubitaddin longo in the wit, she says da gravvers can pink a tickle frathoms, know what I mean?

YOU MADE THAT UP
posted by grubi at 6:34 AM on August 2, 2010 [1 favorite]


I absolutely loved this. I enjoyed the first episode a bit more than the second, but they both made me stupid with joy.

I loved the throwaway line at the end of the first episode about where Watson had been wounded (leg vs shoulder), a nice reference to the fact that in the original stories his old war wound moves from place to place -- in one story it's his leg, in another his shoulder, somewhere else it's his arm, etc. It was nice to see a little bit of acknowledgment (and perhaps explanation) of this inconsistency.

I've read recently that it's likely the BBC will commission additional episodes. So that's good.
posted by That's Numberwang! at 6:40 AM on August 2, 2010 [2 favorites]


Oh I loved Mark Gattis in League of Gentlemen. Never knew he wrote for Doctor Who, but I'm glad to see him here again.
posted by ts;dr at 6:40 AM on August 2, 2010


Benedict Cumberbatch is the best name ever.
posted by HumanComplex at 6:46 AM on August 2, 2010 [5 favorites]


So BBC America will be showing this in about three years? With 10% of it edited out to make room for commercials? Or are Star Trek TNG repeats taking up too much of their prime time?
posted by octothorpe at 6:48 AM on August 2, 2010 [1 favorite]


So BBC America will be showing this in about three years? With 10% of it edited out to make room for commercials? Or are Star Trek TNG repeats taking up too much of their prime time?

Actually it was co-produced by WGBH Boston for Masterpiece, so my guess is we'll see it on PBS for the November sweeps.
posted by That's Numberwang! at 6:50 AM on August 2, 2010


why did they structure the series as three, ninety minute episodes, rather than an initial pilot (maybe ninety minutes), then followed by three one hour episodes or other such variant?

Apparently they filmed a 60 minute pilot, and decided it wasn't working so they junked the whole thing and redid it as a 90 minute show.
posted by Electric Dragon at 6:57 AM on August 2, 2010


I've adored the books since I was a teen, and consider Jeremy Brett to be the perfect Holmes. They've recently re-aired the BBC Sherlock Holmes in the US on PBS, and my partner and I watched it devotedly. The precision and dedication of that series to upholding the books exactly was a thing of beauty

That said, I really don't mind re-inventions of the Arthur Conan Doyle/Holmes canon. I loved the Mark Frost books, enjoyed the visuals of the Ritchie interpretation, and I can't wait to see this new iteration from the BBC. Holmes has become an archetype of sorts rather than a precise character. To me it's sort of like the variations on Dracula... lots of room for interpretations.
posted by kimdog at 7:13 AM on August 2, 2010 [2 favorites]


I didn't care for it and won't be watching any more episodes.

The writer does some clever work incorporating storylines from the original series, such as the leg vs. shoulder wound that ThatsNumberwang! mentioned. There's the title for "Study in Pink" vs. "Study in Scarlet" and the new interpretation of "rache."

Unfortunately the New Sherlock is much more of an ass than the old Sherlock-- O.S. is cold, dispassionate, analytical, a brilliant man with a scientific approach to life. O.S. is made more palatable to readers by using bumbling not-overly-bright Watson as the filter between the reader and Holmes. The reader can feel superior to Watson yet receive the explanation they need to follow the plot; this allows the reader to bond with O.S. By making Watson a more sensible, likable character (as played by Tim from The Office) the writers have made the New Sherlock seem evener more distasteful. N.S. is more aggressively anti-social-- he seems to enjoy antagonizing people whereas O.S. was unaware that he was being anti-social.

I would have watched if they had done a better job of casting Sherlock and they had made his character a bit more analytical and a little less douchey.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 7:29 AM on August 2, 2010


And then of course there's 'All Consuming Fire' by Andy Lane, a novel from the mid-90s when Virgin Publishing still had the licence to publish Doctor Who fiction, in which the Doctor (McCoy-era) teams up with Sherlock Holmes to battle... ia, ia, but that would be telling. The book is a joy.
posted by Hogshead at 7:30 AM on August 2, 2010


Jeremy Brett. I'd rather rewatch that whole series again than risk a broken heart. I'm just not ready for a new relationship, even if the word sociopath really really appeals to me in a tv blurb.
posted by shinybaum at 7:36 AM on August 2, 2010 [1 favorite]


So, it's like House, but about a detective?

You're right, this modern adaptation of Sherlock Holmes pretty much copied House's format.

Oh, wait.

I may or may not be a bystander in the most recent episode, as I was in Trafalgar Square when they were filming. I've been trying to spot myself, but it's quite tricky as I'm rather nondescript.

The first episode was a lot better than the second - far more in line with the modern update, and far less mysterious (not the right word - the choice of villains, especially the hammy Oriental-ness, just rubbed me the wrong way).
posted by djgh at 7:43 AM on August 2, 2010


I had to turn off the Guy Ritchie Sherlock after the second retardedly slow 'action' scene. What the hell was that?

But this I rather like. I liked the second episode better, it seemed to have a few shades of "Talons of Weng-Chiang", a Tom Baker Doctor Who classic. Anyhow, I liked the mystery in this story a lot better.

I did need subtitles for the super-fast-deductive-mode that Sherlock tends to use. It's so easy to miss half the plot when he goes on like that.
posted by Harry at 7:53 AM on August 2, 2010


Really, I don't think I've ever seen any Holmes adaptation that wasn't entertaining. I'm huge fan of the original Rathbone/Bruce movies - in my heart, Holmes is Basil Rathbone - but so many others come to mind.

If you like pastiches, I strongly recommend the movie The Seven Percent Solution and the short story A Study In Emerald (a free download there from Mr. Gaiman's site), both of which completely turn Holmes on his deerstalker in unexpected ways.

(Note that I have no link for The Seven Percent Solution, because I didn't find one that didn't have some sort of spoiler, not that there aren't huge quantities of surprise all throughout the movie. If you like Holmes, I advise you to rent the movie and put it on without looking at any of the packaging or materials - it'll give you at least one extra surprise.

(And if you like that, I'd also suggest its sibling movie with the same writer and director and "feel" - Time After Time, where H. G. Wells travels through time...)
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 7:55 AM on August 2, 2010 [2 favorites]


Watson is not well. Not. Well. At all.
posted by Evilspork at 7:59 AM on August 2, 2010 [4 favorites]


Did anyone notice that Gatiss's episode had no character overlap other than Holmes and Watson?

The second episode was written by Steve Thompson. Gatiss's episode, for which I have very high hopes, is next week's.
posted by keever at 8:01 AM on August 2, 2010


I enjoyed Sherlock, although I was preparing to hate it, being a lover of the Conan-doyle books. It is a bit like Doctor Who minus time travel and aliens.

There's a but. I'm not entirely sure what my 'but' is.

Perhaps it is because I've been watching series like Edge of Darkness and GBH and find the programme, and much of BBC drama these days to be designed for an audience of 'teenagers, rather than adults.

Perhaps it is because the programmes seem to be shiny and slick. Sure they're stylish and you can see where the budget went, but I miss grimy, edgy and gritty.

Perhaps it is because the bean counters are looking for immediate success, meaning that slow burners or left-field drama isn't there.

I'm left with something I enjoy, but nothing that really grabs me, nothing that I think i'll be watching in 20 years time and still appreciate.
posted by quarsan at 8:01 AM on August 2, 2010 [3 favorites]


I feel this thread would benefit from a bit of Kate Beaton.

I totally forgot about this show until this FPP peeked over the bottom of my browser, so iplayer is downloading the first two episodes as I type (at least, I assume it is; it's possible something's happened to my house while I'm at work). I'm excited for the Moffatt episode but less enthused about the Gatiss one: I've never been particularly in love with his work, and I've gone into enough stuff of his hoping that it'd be decent that I think I'll just turn it off this time if the first five minutes don't impress.
posted by ArmyOfKittens at 8:17 AM on August 2, 2010 [3 favorites]


O.S. is made more palatable to readers by using bumbling not-overly-bright Watson as the filter between the reader and Holmes.

But Watson isn't bumbling or not-overly-bright; he's a man of above average intelligence with a sharp eye for detail, as Holmes himself points out. (In fact, the Jeremy Brett series was partly intended to show viewers that Watson does have a functional brain between his ears.) It's just that nobody can do what Holmes does, unless your first name is Mycroft. There's a pretty striking difference between Watson and a genuinely stupid Watson knockoff like Christie's Captain Hastings.

In any event, Sherlock crops up in the USA at the end of October, no doubt to cheer up distraught viewers who have just made it through the new offering of Wallander.
posted by thomas j wise at 8:26 AM on August 2, 2010


I've only seen the first 10 minutes and I can already tell that it is leagues ahead of the dreadful Guy Ritchie Holmes.
posted by chaz at 8:37 AM on August 2, 2010


It was neat seeing how well Martin Freeman--whom I know mostly for slightly schlubby roles--playing against type as a veteran. He really did a great job embodying the warm stoicism of a lifelong member of the armed forces.

(Also, the original Watson was an Afghan war veteran as well...)
posted by Ian A.T. at 8:50 AM on August 2, 2010


Somehow I doubt that Holmes' Victorian enthusiasm for narcotics will not survive either in these PC beige times.

I don't think it's a spoiler to say that in this aspect, the new Sherlock Holmes is loyal to the source material.

Personally? I loved the first episode, although I agree that It's a bit off that Sherlock was the last person in my front room to work out who the killer was, but the rest of it was wonderful! Stylistically, I thought it was very watchable and quite engaging without seeming gimmicky, and the characterization was great!

In response to some of the comments on here about the quality of other BBC programs, I guess my opinions are thus: Go watch The Silence, or Luthor, and then tell me that the Beeb can't do dark storylines and moral ambiguity. I know they're not The Wire, but they're a hell of a far cry from Doctor Who and Ashes to Ashes as well. HBO makes (in my opinion) some of the best television ever produced, and while it would be great if the BBC was producing stuff of that quality, depth, and length, just because it isn't doesn't mean that what it does produce is shallow stupid junk.

Especially since this year the BBC has produced some pretty damn good realist drama series, people making the argument that it's all campy dumbed down New Who audience hand holding just come across to me at least, as just having an axe to grind.
posted by emperor.seamus at 8:59 AM on August 2, 2010 [2 favorites]


So wait, Watson has Phase Switched Transmit Diversity, or Pseudospectral time domain?
posted by Mooseli at 9:02 AM on August 2, 2010


I'll check this out when it comes to the US in October, but sadly it doesn't sound like my cup of tea. Like le morte de bea arthur said, Jeremy Brett was brilliant and is a hard act to follow.
posted by homunculus at 9:08 AM on August 2, 2010


Post Stromatic Test Disorder?
posted by Hairy Lobster at 9:19 AM on August 2, 2010 [1 favorite]


I loved the first week's. In particular for Holmes admitting that there was always something wrong (and "Harry is short for Harriet"). The only weak part was the actual mystery. (And with that name for an episode a cabbie should have been no more of a surprise than an iceberg in Titanic). The second episode was weak. Orientalist, annoying, a reveal that didn't quite work (A-Zs have editions, people!) and it felt like a 45 minute episode inflated to 90.

I could only tolerate about ten minutes of the Ritchie version of "Holmes" because it was so blatantly unfaithful to the original text.

I could argue that the Richie Holmes is more true to the original text even than the Jeremy Brett adaptation. What it entirely lacks is the meta-Holmes that's not actually in the text (the clearest example being the deerstalker, which is never actually mentioned anywhere, but comes from the illustrations). And likewise it (like the Brett) has a smart Watson - not quite as smart as Holmes (who is other than his brother?) but still pretty smart and charming. This doesn't come through in the books because, as narrator, Watson chooses to remain a cypher; the books are about Watson observing Holmes and for an adaptation to work we need to observe both Holmes and Watson.

But watch it to the end before judging - it looked really off the rails in one huge way for a long time, but never actually was.
posted by Francis at 9:23 AM on August 2, 2010 [1 favorite]


Oh, and (again, hopefully without spoiling anything) people who've seen it: Was I the only one shouting Princess Bride quotes at the screen by the end of this episode?
posted by emperor.seamus at 9:28 AM on August 2, 2010 [2 favorites]


Having just watched the Rathbone/Bruce 1939 Hound of the Baskervilles on TCM, there is only one Holmes. Sucker Sherlocks should call him sire.
posted by Celsius1414 at 9:34 AM on August 2, 2010


Oh, and (again, hopefully without spoiling anything) people who've seen it: Was I the only one shouting Princess Bride quotes at the screen by the end of this episode?

No. But that gamble appeared in A Study in Scarlet (although differently).
posted by Francis at 9:37 AM on August 2, 2010 [1 favorite]


Are digital versions available for purchase in the US? I love love loved Matt Smith's Doctor Who, and that I was able to buy it on Amazon helped considerably. Sadly, piracy is for the young.

Are there fezzes? Fezzes are cool.
posted by anotherpanacea at 9:48 AM on August 2, 2010 [1 favorite]


That said, I really don't mind re-inventions of the Arthur Conan Doyle/Holmes canon.

So long as they don't come to replace the (usually superior) originals.

I had to turn off the Guy Ritchie Sherlock after the second retardedly slow 'action' scene. What the hell was that?

I remember the underground boxing scene and remarking, "I knew Commander Data liked to pretend to be Sherlock Holmes, but I didn't know Sherlock Holmes like to pretend to be Commander Data."

I feel this thread would benefit from a bit of Kate Beaton.

Don't forget the sequel to that strip.

I could argue that the Richie Holmes is more true to the original text even than the Jeremy Brett adaptation.

Naw, it was Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Holmses. I despised it, and I very well did see the whole thing. They may have gotten some of the details right but at the cost of the spirit, and the whole thing was jumbled up with the current special effects muddle that make nigh any action movie released these days unwatchable. Then Holmes' brief brush with mysticalism, the laughable instant-murder-in-the-secret-meeting, the stuff like the chase scene with the big guy.... It might all be part of my own disaffection with current-day Hollywood-style action movie-making, now. It might be some people's idea of a perfect Guy Ritchie Sherlock Holmes movie, where I was appalled by the very idea of a Guy Ritchie Sherlock Holmes movie.
posted by JHarris at 10:15 AM on August 2, 2010


Permit me to introduce you to the nadir of the Holmes universe, Sherlock Headroom.
posted by charlie don't surf at 10:24 AM on August 2, 2010


The stupid BBC America site should have a section for "When are we getting..." that just flat out tells you if they have plans to aget a show and when they are going to get it. It's the only information I ever visit that site for, and they never have it.
posted by Artw at 10:37 AM on August 2, 2010 [2 favorites]


msconduct: yes. i'm the one who sits with a puzzled look on her face & says, 'what'd they say? what'd they say?' when everyone laughs at a monty python joke. or a hushed plot sequence in i, claudius. or the subtleties of an upstairs, downstairs episode. am i the only one who has a hard time understanding britspeak? although i didn't seem to have the same problem with benny hill or mr. bean.

Though I don't have this problem for Doctor Who, this is why I love closed captioning for anything else British on PBS. Not so much because it always seems like the words I don't understand are the most important clues on Masterpiece Mystery (though this is also true) but because I get tired of my boyfriend saying "what'd he say?" as if I'm any better at hearing it than he is.

I found this on my favorite alternative source last week but hadn't got around to watching it. I didn't realize it was an "updated take" on the character, and though that worries me a bit, I'm actually more interested in giving it a show, if only to see what works and what doesn't.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 10:47 AM on August 2, 2010


Just saw the first two episodes.

"Watson" is played very, very well. "Sherlock" is maybe a touch too manic for my tastes, but not bad by a long stretch.

The plot in episode 2 was awful. Episode 1 was very interesting in that it managed to pique every facet of what makes Sherlock so interesting to viewers.

Unfortunately, I guessed the killer to be ..what he was... very early, what with all the "clues" left around. His inability to make that last, very simple logical step, was maddeningly frustrating considering his other feats.

The SMS thing was great, as were some of the illustrations of his thought process.
posted by flippant at 11:22 AM on August 2, 2010


I liked the Ritchie Holmes a lot better than the Rathbone Holmes simply because Downey and Law don't seem to hold the characters in contempt the way Rathbone and Bruce seemed to. I loved Sherlock Holmes as a kid, and the Rathbone movies felt like vicious parodies.
posted by Pope Guilty at 11:44 AM on August 2, 2010


"If you don't like our version, it's fine, because by the time it's finished there'll be another one along."
posted by Artw at 11:47 AM on August 2, 2010


I've been pretty excited about the idea of this show since I've heard about it, so reading a bit about the execution is fascinating. I've adored Moffat's turns on Doctor Who and I've also enjoyed the two Lucifer Box novels I've read by Gatiss. Sadly they don't seem to have announced when and if the DVD is coming out (or at least Netflix doesn't know about it).

Yes, I know about alternative means, kthx. I just want the special goodies that come with DVDs too.
posted by immlass at 11:51 AM on August 2, 2010


As I watched the first episode, I was really hopping that it was going to be sort of "meh". Because that would have meant that I could kick back and watch it on my own. Instead, it was Sherlock Holmes as played by the Doctor, who doesn't realize that he's The Doctor.

And that meant that I had to wait for my wife to finish what she was doing so she could watch it with me.

It was about 10 minutes in to the first episode when Holmes is expressing his excitement at being on a case while Watson watched, when I realized... "Crap. This is going to be way too good to watch alone. If she finds out, she will kill me."

So Screw you Moffat! For making something compelling and fun that I felt the need to share with my wife, rather that letting me just unplug my brain for 90 minutes.
posted by quin at 11:53 AM on August 2, 2010


I, for one, enjoyed a Study in Pink despite the plot. My concern was not how dated the visuals will look in a year or how manic the new Holmes is, but whether 2010 needs a consulting detective. Forgive me my trespass, but I have written about it on my OFB

Oh and Jeremy Brett was Holmes.
posted by prufrock at 12:00 PM on August 2, 2010


Oh and Jeremy Brett was Holmes.

I keep wishing that Brett's tragic death was a hoax like the incident at Reichenbach Falls, and that he will return to finish the series.
posted by charlie don't surf at 1:05 PM on August 2, 2010 [2 favorites]


am i the only one who has a hard time understanding britspeak?

Just about any British movie or TV show, I have to have subtitles on, at least in the beginning.


Geez, I use subtitles for The Wire! I hate missing dialogue.

So, is there a subtitle option for this show?
posted by bearwife at 1:13 PM on August 2, 2010


So, is there a subtitle option for this show?

There's a story from the glory days of punk and it may be about the Clash or the Stranglers or the Damned and honestly it doesn't really matter but let's say it was the Clash, but anyway the band in question has a new album about to come out. And a newspaper journalist who has been told to review it writes a nice letter to the band's record label saying that the disc is excellent and the songs are very powerful but he can't make out all the words and would it be possible to get a lyric sheet so he can review it properly? And by return of post arrives an envelope stuffed with sheets of paper in the recognisable and almost completely illegible handwriting of the band's lyricist and lead singer, who for the sake of this anecdote is Joe Strummer. Pages and pages, each song written out in full, unreadable. Well, not all of it unreadable. At the bottom of the last page, printed in neat block capitals, are the words

"USE YOUR FUCKING EARS."
posted by Hogshead at 2:38 PM on August 2, 2010 [2 favorites]


Oh, I love the little details: One of the books used for the code they needed to decipher in the second episode is Iain M. Banks Transition!
posted by ts;dr at 3:18 PM on August 2, 2010


"USE YOUR FUCKING EARS."

What a great approach to get people to understand and appreciate your words!

And I love all the work that went into telling this working journalist they didn't care to be the least bit helpful.
posted by bearwife at 3:56 PM on August 2, 2010


"who have just made it through the new offering of Wallander."

...new...Wallander...!?
Time to hit up my alternative sources.
posted by Tenuki at 4:19 PM on August 2, 2010


What a great approach to get people to understand and appreciate your words!

You want prog rock, down the hall.
posted by Artw at 4:24 PM on August 2, 2010 [1 favorite]


Yeah, I never understood politically-oriented bands that don't include lyrics.

"We've got a message, and fuck anyone who wants to know what it is!"

Contrast with Crass, whose lyric sheets have been cited as being more interesting than their recordings.
posted by Pope Guilty at 4:54 PM on August 2, 2010 [3 favorites]


Saw the second part last night, and wasn't as taken with it as the first episode, which was a great deal of fun, despite having an all-too-obvious villain.

I was sort of hoping, at the point where my housemate was yelling out "Oh, come on - it must be the cabbie!" that is wouldn't be, and there's be another layer of deduction to apply to the problem. But we can't have everything.

Also, not really getting the Ashes to Ashes hate above? Sure, it wasn't perfect, but it was fun, and it looked and sounded great, and - other than the Mercedes-Benz brochure being for the plebian 190 D rather than the properly quick 190 E 2.3-16 - the ending was delightful, especially when contrasted against another show that shall remain nameless which ended in the same fortnight with a similar mechanism.
posted by MarchHare at 6:31 PM on August 2, 2010


So, I've just seen the first episode. Charming, very very charming. Moffat knows his stuff. Also, apparently the man who plays Sherlock was in Nathan Barley and stars in Four Lions? That's...awesome. At any rate, the plot was relatively obvious, but it might be just as well - the real story was meeting Watson and seeing how far Sherlock would go. A solid beginning.

Something striking about this Holmes is how Moffat et al. understand that Sherlock Holmes is a powerful, appealing myth, and so what we want to see is good actors entertainingly act out this appealing myth. This also helped his mini-reboot of Doctor Who, even though the central characters are only superficially similar - Holmes really is a charming, high-functioning sociopath with eerily powerful deductive skills, whereas the Doctor is more like an ancient time-traveling trickster.

Something Moffat does absolutely right in this update - to be contrasted with the mediocre Guy Ritchie version - is that the show plays fair with Holmes' deductions. They always make sense in retrospect, and it doesn't really cheat. What I disliked about the otherwise professionally-made Ritchie version was how Holmes saw things we didn't see and understood things we didn't understand until later. Part of the fun of Sherlock Holmes is the ability to go "ah-hah!" along with him. It's no fun - and actually a rather lot like badly written Doctor Who - when he just sort of notices stuff that the audience couldn't possibly see and then deduces stuff that the audience couldn't possibly even deduce in retrospect.

The overlaying of text helps us understand his POV in a novel and effective way. I dig it. It makes sense that Holmes' world would be a blur of obvious-to-him clues and obvious-to-him stories.

I'm steeled for the next episode being not as good. I'll allow it.
posted by Sticherbeast at 6:46 PM on August 2, 2010


I feel this thread would benefit from a bit of Kate Beaton.

Show me a thread that wouldn't.
posted by Alt F4 at 8:31 PM on August 2, 2010 [2 favorites]


I was really expecting to hate this - but I love it!
posted by keijo at 9:02 PM on August 2, 2010


How does one pretend to inhabit the UK and thus make use of the BBCs Iplayer?
posted by mecran01 at 9:10 PM on August 2, 2010


Try Hotspot Shield.
posted by Pope Guilty at 9:24 PM on August 2, 2010


Episode 1 very good and fun. nice character moments. A few oddly paced/dialogued bits. Silly mystery. Grade A-
Episode 2 Dragged on, rather tedious with not very interesting and kinda stupid plot. Grade C+

Looking forward to Episode 3!
posted by Bwithh at 11:20 PM on August 2, 2010


I remember the underground boxing scene and remarking, "I knew Commander Data liked to pretend to be Sherlock Holmes, but I didn't know Sherlock Holmes like to pretend to be Commander Data."

Given that a professional bare knuckle boxer in the Holmes stories claims that Holmes was wasted as anything other than a boxer, we can infer that yes he did bare knuckle box and was very good at it. That it simply isn't relevant to his cases most of the time, and isn't something that Watson plays up in his write-ups, doesn't mean that it isn't right there in the text.

Naw, it was Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Holmses. I despised it, and I very well did see the whole thing. They may have gotten some of the details right but at the cost of the spirit,

The spirit of Sherlock Holmes is what it always was. Pulp adventure wrapped round clues that didn't quite work, and Holmes cheating like crazy.

Then Holmes' brief brush with mysticalism,

When he thought his way into the mind of the enemy and followed their instructions to work out what they would do next? No, I don't believe that would have been in the books. But that's because I don't believe Watson would have recorded it that way rather than that I see it as inconsistent with Holmes.

the laughable instant-murder-in-the-secret-meeting,

Compared to e.g. Mr. Hossomer Angel, that was very plausible. For great intellectual mysteries, the whole thing was bad. But for serial pulp stories published in a magazine, it worked.

the stuff like the chase scene with the big guy...

You have a point on this one.
posted by Francis at 2:37 AM on August 3, 2010


Spoilers follow.

Maybe it's because I never read any of the original text, but I found the resolution of the first episode extremely irritating. The whole time I was thinking of what tricks he could have used to put the poison in both pills and survive, and when he said he had an aneurysm I thought ah-hah, that's got to be it. But it turns out he was just lucky 4 times in a row, a one in sixteen random chance? BOOOOOOO-urns. Maybe I'm just spoiled by all the modern plot-twisting that goes into detective procedurals, but it felt extremely anti-climactic to have all that build up and then just nothing. Why did Sherlock continue hanging around, wasn't his whole deal that he wanted to know how the guy got them to choose the wrong pill four times? If there really was no artifice other than the gun being fake why not just get up and walk out and summon the detectives to arrest him? It makes no sense.
posted by Rhomboid at 3:31 AM on August 3, 2010


apparently the man who plays Sherlock was in Nathan Barley

According to Google he played a character named Robin in two episodes, but I can't place him and don't have the episodes on hand. Does anyone remember what character he played?
posted by Ian A.T. at 4:56 AM on August 3, 2010


Also, I thought one of the few missteps of the show was letting the audience see Watson do that thing he did before Sherlock worked it out. You'd think the payoff would have been better if they'd just cut that one second shot, so that both the audience and Sherlock would have figured it out at the same time.
posted by Ian A.T. at 4:59 AM on August 3, 2010


According to Google he played a character named Robin in two episodes, but I can't place him and don't have the episodes on hand. Does anyone remember what character he played?

He's the beleaguered business manager of Place. Funny straight man role.

Why did Sherlock continue hanging around, wasn't his whole deal that he wanted to know how the guy got them to choose the wrong pill four times? If there really was no artifice other than the gun being fake why not just get up and walk out and summon the detectives to arrest him? It makes no sense.

Because the cabbie offered him another puzzle - can you tell the difference between poison and placebo? - and Holmes' weakness is that he cannot resist a puzzle. The fact that it was a pointless, dangerous, perhaps unsolvable puzzle underlines how nutty Holmes is and how much he needs Watson. If they continue to run with this idea, then I'm cool with it.
posted by Sticherbeast at 9:29 AM on August 3, 2010


Also, I thought one of the few missteps of the show was letting the audience see Watson do that thing he did before Sherlock worked it out. You'd think the payoff would have been better if they'd just cut that one second shot, so that both the audience and Sherlock would have figured it out at the same time.

Agreed. As a matter of fact, I would have loved it if (spoilers) Holmes started describing someone like Watson, but then suddenly started giving false deductions describing someone else entirely. Then he could walk up to Watson and slap him on the back all friendly-like.
posted by Sticherbeast at 9:33 AM on August 3, 2010


BBC confirms 13 new eps of Doctor Who will air next year
posted by Artw at 9:55 AM on August 3, 2010


And five episodes by Moffat. That man is busy. And we are lucky.
posted by mek at 12:26 PM on August 3, 2010


He has script credit alongside Edgar Wright for Steven Spielberg's upcoming Tintin movie. Guy's a geek God.
posted by Sticherbeast at 12:35 PM on August 3, 2010


And one by Neil Gaiman (evidence). Who's writing the other seven?
posted by Grangousier at 12:40 PM on August 3, 2010


Well, Gatiss is a cert.


Nicky Wire from the Manic Street Preachers is apparently writing one "for fun". Er, yeah, good luck mate...


I'm hoping Paul Cornell gets a look in this time. And maybe not Torchwood bloke.

And as ever I think that Kim Newman would be really good at it.
posted by Artw at 1:00 PM on August 3, 2010 [1 favorite]


Just watched the pilot; liked it quite a bit! I'll be interested to see more.
posted by Greg Nog at 9:09 PM on August 3, 2010


In catching up with the thread, I am pleased to see the Jeremy Brett love. So I offer this bit of mindblowing insight (at least it was to me) into his earlier career: He's on the street where you live!
posted by kimdog at 8:48 AM on August 4, 2010


Just watched the first one last night. My wife and I wound up a six-month stint on the Brett series just over a month ago, every single episode more more less straight through.

We both enjoyed the new version; I nth the frustration with the relative obviousness of the killer's ID in the first episode. I was a bit put off by Holmes buying in to the 'game' at the end; when the killer claims "I won't cheat," there is no rational reason to believe him. But whatevs.

On aspect of the production that tickled both of us is the unambiguous nod to the interior layout of 221b Baker Street as seen in the Brett series. Both production designers -may- have chosen to be constrained by the upper-level facade of the building now numbered 221 (sadly not visible on Street View, there's a gap between about 210 and 230) in the use of the dual street-facing windows, it's hard to say.

However, the designers on the new show had complete freedom with regard to locating the entry door, an additional room off the main, and a fireplace. They chose to effectively duplicate the layout as seen in the Granada production. I -think- the back room was occupied by Holmes' quarters in the Brett, rather than a kitchenette, but the new apartment is clearly architecturally related to the Victorian space first visualized in the 1980s.

I would say I like it, and the differences, more than the corresponding revisualizations of similar well-loved imaginary spaces such as the bridge of the Enterprise.

Finally, the Whovian aspects of this version, and perhaps even the Housian, seemed clear enough - Holmes is never seen outside with out his scarf and overcoat; the doctor's cane likens him to House and he's clearly having a hard time making connections to other people. I wonder if those aspects of the characters will fall away in time, although three episodes is surely not long enough to jettison the window dressing.

Hmph, now I'm imagining a Fry/Laurie Holmes.
posted by mwhybark at 9:34 AM on August 6, 2010 [1 favorite]


The University of Minnesota has a large Holmesanalia collection and archives documents pertaining to it and to exhibitions mounted, which appear to have focused on architecture in the Holmesian universe on at least two occasions, including a show devoted to 221b in particular!
posted by mwhybark at 9:59 AM on August 6, 2010 [3 favorites]


So, the third episode just aired and I have to say my feelings (as a non-Holmesian, though I've read Study in Scarlet and Hound of the Baskervilles) are rather mixed.

THE GOOD:
- Great acting for the most part.
- Witty banter!
- Clever visuals - makes the show look different from anything else on film.
- Playful acknowledgment of the subtext.
- Great ending!
- Not pulling any punches re: Holmes' character.

THE BAD:
- Theme music is pretty but doesn't fit and was used constantly.
- Clever visuals - trying way, way too hard, guys.
- The ridiculous 3rd ep fight scene in the [SPOILER] - you know the one.
- A rather marked disparity in the treatment of characters who are white, male, middle-class, (presumed) straight and able-bodied versus those who don't fit one or more of those categories. The Orientalism and the ... freakshow prejudice, dunno what else to term it ... are particularly squicky but there's a lot of "subtle" misogyny and classism, too. Guys, this is a modernization; you can drop the Victorian moral sensibilities.
posted by bettafish at 3:58 PM on August 8, 2010 [1 favorite]


So probably at least a year before we see any more episodes. Damn.
posted by Tenuki at 6:18 AM on August 9, 2010


wait, Orientalism and sideshow-niss in both the second and third episodes? Crimony, I just wasted my night on The Black Camel, the Charlie Chan movie mentioned in a recent New Yorker article on a book which explored the factual man behind the Charlie Chan character. I really like old movies, silents in particular, and have a tolerance for transitional talkies. But, like, uh. Not to my taste.

And so what I hear tell here is episodes two and three of this shiny thing I am predisposed to like are mining the same vein? Really? Really?

I was a bit aggravated about the "Lucky Cat" in episode two; isn't maneki neko more, uh, Japanese than Chinese?
posted by mwhybark at 10:05 PM on August 9, 2010


You know, a bit of Googling seems to indicate that "lucky cat" sculptures appear commonly in British Chinese restaurants. Is that right, cousins?
posted by mwhybark at 10:13 PM on August 9, 2010


mwhybark: Yes and no...

I didn't know it was specific to a culture, to be honest.

It's getting better, but for a long time anyone from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, etc came to the UK and opened an 'Indian' restaurant, normally serving their own local dishes as well as a collection of 'Indian' recipes.

The same with anyone from further across Asia - they all came over as 'Chinese' rather than their own nationality's cuisine.

The fault is, I think, ours not theirs...
posted by sodium lights the horizon at 3:34 AM on August 10, 2010


I was a bit aggravated about the "Lucky Cat" in episode two; isn't maneki neko more, uh, Japanese than Chinese?

You know, a bit of Googling seems to indicate that "lucky cat" sculptures appear commonly in British Chinese restaurants. Is that right, cousins?


I can't speak for Britain, but the lucky cat shows up in many, many Chinese restaurants and other businesses over here in America.
posted by Sticherbeast at 8:14 AM on August 10, 2010


Bonus points for solar powered ones with moving paw!
posted by Artw at 9:52 AM on August 10, 2010 [1 favorite]


(I always call the "hello kitties" because they are waving hello)
posted by Artw at 9:52 AM on August 10, 2010


Me too, Art, until I got curious. You now the oldest local Japanese place is named after them, yes? And dig that logo.
posted by mwhybark at 6:12 PM on August 10, 2010


now = know, so sorry
posted by mwhybark at 6:13 PM on August 10, 2010


FWIW, I think bettafish was calling the second episode the third. The third involves no particular orientalism (and was by and large better than the second).
posted by mwhybark at 9:43 PM on August 13, 2010


But it turns out he was just lucky 4 times in a row, a one in sixteen random chance? BOOOOOOO-urns.

I don't think that was the intent. At least, what Killer Dude thought was going on was that he was such a master judge of character and keen manipulator of others and just soooo smaaaaart that he knew which vial to put in front of the victim to "ensure" that the victim swallowed the poison. Of course, he could think that about himself but still just have been lucky.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 9:00 PM on August 14, 2010 [1 favorite]


« Older An ongoing drought in Niger has resulted in a fami...  |  Copying is the engine of cultu... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments