On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 14:55:29 -0500, Alan <ALANBIDDL...@YAHOO.COM>
wrote:
>The pilot was interesting, but lacked the quirky whimsy of the UK
>version.
It seems to me that each new version of Holmes I see is deliberately
intended to be more annoying than the last one. (I have to wonder if
this is partly because of the success of House.) Since in general I
don't enjoy shows about annoying people, I am unlikely to watch this
beyond my standard 3-ep tryout.
> The pilot was interesting, but lacked the quirky whimsy of the
> UK version.
> Any bets on how long will it take for him to investigate and
> determine that the patient Watson lost was in fact murdered? It
> just seems inevitable.
They might as well have put that in the title.
And Holmes' own drug conviction will turn out to have been a) research in to something or other, and b) faked anyway.
-- Terry Austin
"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek
> On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 14:55:29 -0500, Alan
> <ALANBIDDL...@YAHOO.COM> wrote:
>>The pilot was interesting, but lacked the quirky whimsy of the
>>UK version.
> It seems to me that each new version of Holmes I see is
> deliberately intended to be more annoying than the last one. (I
> have to wonder if this is partly because of the success of
> House.)
That, and the scruffy beard.
But House _was_ Sherlock Holmes fan fic, after all.
-- Terry Austin
"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek
> The pilot was interesting, but lacked the quirky whimsy of the
> UK version.
> Any bets on how long will it take for him to investigate and
> determine that the patient Watson lost was in fact murdered? It
> just seems inevitable.
"Him"?!? Wasn't the new American Sherlock Holmes mess meant to have a
female Sherlock? Or is that yet another version being made?
>> The pilot was interesting, but lacked the quirky whimsy of the
>> UK version.
>> Any bets on how long will it take for him to investigate and
>> determine that the patient Watson lost was in fact murdered? It
>> just seems inevitable.
> They might as well have put that in the title.
> And Holmes' own drug conviction will turn out to have been a)
> research in to something or other, and b) faked anyway.
No, given his issues, I believe his drug conviction was legitimate.
>> The pilot was interesting, but lacked the quirky whimsy of the
>> UK version.
>> Any bets on how long will it take for him to investigate and
>> determine that the patient Watson lost was in fact murdered? It
>> just seems inevitable.
> "Him"?!? Wasn't the new American Sherlock Holmes mess meant to have a
> female Sherlock?
>> The pilot was interesting, but lacked the quirky whimsy of the
>> UK version.
>> Any bets on how long will it take for him to investigate and
>> determine that the patient Watson lost was in fact murdered? It
>> just seems inevitable.
>They might as well have put that in the title.
>And Holmes' own drug conviction will turn out to have been a) >research in to something or other, and b) faked anyway.
>Terry Austin
Why think that? If the original ACD version used cocaine, why
shouldn't the new version also be a user?
Granted, most of the ACD stories didn't mention it at all. (Of those
that did, it went from "three times a day" in The Sign of Four to
"occasional use" in Yellow Face.) And the ACD stories never showed
him as having his life turned upside down by an addiction to the drug
(which was not illegal back then). He just needed something to keep
his brain occupied. If there was a murder to solve (or indeed, any
interesting puzzle) he seemed to have no need of cocaine. But mundane
life was something he could not tolerate. Sherlock speaking to Watson
in The Sign Of Four (published in 1890):
"My mind," he said, "rebels at stagnation. Give me problems, give me
work, give me the most abstruse cryptogram, or the most intricate
analysis, and I am in my own proper atmosphere. I can dispense then
with artificial stimulants. But I abhor the dull routine of existence.
I crave for mental exaltation."
But it's only mentioned AT ALL in a half-dozen stories, and VERY
briefly when it is. It's a very SMALL part of his life - but it's
still a part.
A modern take (The 1974 Movie "The 7 Percent Solution") made it a much
bigger part of his life, and many people have run with that idea
since. There's nothing in the ACD stories to support THAT take on it -
but he WAS a user in the ACD stories.
>>> The pilot was interesting, but lacked the quirky whimsy of the
>>> UK version.
>>> Any bets on how long will it take for him to investigate and
>>> determine that the patient Watson lost was in fact murdered? >>> It just seems inevitable.
>> They might as well have put that in the title.
>> And Holmes' own drug conviction will turn out to have been a)
>> research in to something or other, and b) faked anyway.
> No, given his issues, I believe his drug conviction was
> legitimate.
They may keep that story arc for season 2, but not longer.
As further supproting evidence, I would submit that they have done
a Battlestar Galactica on this:
Step 1: Find something you can "reimagine."
Step 2: Identify all of the dinstictive elements to it
Step 3: Make them the exact opposite
Step 4: Give half of the major characters tits.
The original Holmes *was* a cocaine addict, so to be opposite,
this Holmes isn't.
-- Terry Austin
"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek
>>> The pilot was interesting, but lacked the quirky whimsy of the
>>> UK version.
>>> Any bets on how long will it take for him to investigate and
>>> determine that the patient Watson lost was in fact murdered? >>> It just seems inevitable.
>>They might as well have put that in the title.
>>And Holmes' own drug conviction will turn out to have been a) >>research in to something or other, and b) faked anyway.
>>Terry Austin
> Why think that? If the original ACD version used cocaine, why
> shouldn't the new version also be a user?
Battlestar Galactica formula: make everything the exact opposite and give have the characters tits.
The original Holmes was a lot less unlikeable to the other characters, and generally only pissed people off for a specific reason. This one pisses people off because he's an asshole. The original Holmes was never involved in any real legal troubles of his own, this one is a convicted drug uers. The original Watson was a doctor of good repute, this one is disgraced. The original detective that Holmes worked with the most (Lastrade) was a bit of a buffoon who hated and resented Holmes, this one is competent and respects Holmes.
It's part of the formula, which made the Syphilis Channel a lot of money, so Hollywood Rule #2 applies: The Formula Shall Not Be Changed Until It Loses Money.
-- Terry Austin
"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek
> As further supproting evidence, I would submit that they have done
> a Battlestar Galactica on this:
> Step 1: Find something you can "reimagine."
> Step 2: Identify all of the dinstictive elements to it
> Step 3: Make them the exact opposite
> Step 4: Give half of the major characters tits.
> The original Holmes *was* a cocaine addict, so to be opposite,
> this Holmes isn't.
Ron Moore's in-name-only Battlestar Galactica wasn't the first to do that
(just one of the very few that lasted more than five seconds), but it
certainly is how the talentless hacks that make up most of Hollyweird
these days "work". :-(
>> As further supproting evidence, I would submit that they have
>> done a Battlestar Galactica on this:
>> Step 1: Find something you can "reimagine."
>> Step 2: Identify all of the dinstictive elements to it
>> Step 3: Make them the exact opposite
>> Step 4: Give half of the major characters tits.
>> The original Holmes *was* a cocaine addict, so to be opposite,
>> this Holmes isn't.
> Ron Moore's in-name-only Battlestar Galactica wasn't the first
> to do that (just one of the very few that lasted more than five
> seconds),
And one of the very few that didn't just suck.
> but it certainly is how the talentless hacks that make
> up most of Hollyweird these days "work". :-(
"These days"? What kind of dope are you smoking that you think it's _ever_ been otherwise?
-- Terry Austin
"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek
> >> As further supproting evidence, I would submit that they have
> >> done a Battlestar Galactica on this:
> >> Step 1: Find something you can "reimagine."
> >> Step 2: Identify all of the dinstictive elements to it
> >> Step 3: Make them the exact opposite
> >> Step 4: Give half of the major characters tits.
> >> The original Holmes *was* a cocaine addict, so to be opposite,
> >> this Holmes isn't.
> > Ron Moore's in-name-only Battlestar Galactica wasn't the first
> > to do that (just one of the very few that lasted more than five
> > seconds),
> And one of the very few that didn't just suck.
The only reason it didn't (supposedly) suck is because it was *SO*
depressing that it never built up enough energy to even try to suck. :op
> > but it certainly is how the talentless hacks that make
> > up most of Hollyweird these days "work". :-(
> "These days"? What kind of dope are you smoking that you think it's > _ever_ been otherwise?
Re-using the same name is a relatively new fad.
Making idiotic changes and remaking older shows / movies is not new though.
> In article <XnsA0E085DBDCC2Ftaustingm...@69.16.186.7>, Gutless
> Umbrella Carrying Sissy <tausti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> YourN...@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote in
>> news:YourName-0310120802030001@203-118-187-85.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz >> : >> > In article <XnsA0E06267B70C8taustingm...@69.16.186.7>,
>> > Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <tausti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> As further supproting evidence, I would submit that they
>> >> have done a Battlestar Galactica on this:
>> >> Step 1: Find something you can "reimagine."
>> >> Step 2: Identify all of the dinstictive elements to it
>> >> Step 3: Make them the exact opposite
>> >> Step 4: Give half of the major characters tits.
>> >> The original Holmes *was* a cocaine addict, so to be
>> >> opposite, this Holmes isn't.
>> > Ron Moore's in-name-only Battlestar Galactica wasn't the
>> > first to do that (just one of the very few that lasted more
>> > than five seconds),
>> And one of the very few that didn't just suck.
> The only reason it didn't (supposedly) suck is because it was
> *SO* depressing that it never built up enough energy to even try
> to suck. :op
But it was very good at depressing you. Plus, it lead to Edward James Olmos leading a chant of "So say we all" at the United Nations, and that's just cool.
>> > but it certainly is how the talentless hacks that make
>> > up most of Hollyweird these days "work". :-(
>> "These days"? What kind of dope are you smoking that you think
>> it's _ever_ been otherwise?
> Re-using the same name is a relatively new fad.
No, not really. Outright remakes have been around for decades.
> Making idiotic changes and remaking older shows / movies is not
> new though.
There hasn't been anything new since about the third movie made. And movies were nothing new to storytelling, which goes back to before humans evolved.
-- Terry Austin
"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek
> >> >> As further supproting evidence, I would submit that they
> >> >> have done a Battlestar Galactica on this:
> >> >> Step 1: Find something you can "reimagine."
> >> >> Step 2: Identify all of the dinstictive elements to it
> >> >> Step 3: Make them the exact opposite
> >> >> Step 4: Give half of the major characters tits.
> >> >> The original Holmes *was* a cocaine addict, so to be
> >> >> opposite, this Holmes isn't.
> >> > Ron Moore's in-name-only Battlestar Galactica wasn't the
> >> > first to do that (just one of the very few that lasted more
> >> > than five seconds),
> >> And one of the very few that didn't just suck.
> > The only reason it didn't (supposedly) suck is because it was
> > *SO* depressing that it never built up enough energy to even try
> > to suck. :op
> But it was very good at depressing you. Plus, it lead to Edward > James Olmos leading a chant of "So say we all" at the United > Nations, and that's just cool.
Casting smileless Olmos is at least 40% of the reason the show was always
going to be depressing.
> >> > but it certainly is how the talentless hacks that make
> >> > up most of Hollyweird these days "work". :-(
> >> "These days"? What kind of dope are you smoking that you think
> >> it's _ever_ been otherwise?
> > Re-using the same name is a relatively new fad.
> No, not really. Outright remakes have been around for decades.
> > Making idiotic changes and remaking older shows / movies is not
> > new though.
> There hasn't been anything new since about the third movie made. > And movies were nothing new to storytelling, which goes back to > before humans evolved.
As I said, remakes are not new, the fad of re-using the same name (to the
degree the lazy hacks in Hollyweird are doing now) is relatively new.
>> >> >> As further supproting evidence, I would submit that they
>> >> >> have done a Battlestar Galactica on this:
>> >> >> Step 1: Find something you can "reimagine."
>> >> >> Step 2: Identify all of the dinstictive elements to it
>> >> >> Step 3: Make them the exact opposite
>> >> >> Step 4: Give half of the major characters tits.
>> >> >> The original Holmes *was* a cocaine addict, so to be
>> >> >> opposite, this Holmes isn't.
>> >> > Ron Moore's in-name-only Battlestar Galactica wasn't the
>> >> > first to do that (just one of the very few that lasted
>> >> > more than five seconds),
>> >> And one of the very few that didn't just suck.
>> > The only reason it didn't (supposedly) suck is because it was
>> > *SO* depressing that it never built up enough energy to even
>> > try to suck. :op
>> But it was very good at depressing you. Plus, it lead to Edward
>> James Olmos leading a chant of "So say we all" at the United >> Nations, and that's just cool.
> Casting smileless Olmos is at least 40% of the reason the show
> was always going to be depressing.
>> >> > but it certainly is how the talentless hacks that make
>> >> > up most of Hollyweird these days "work". :-(
>> >> "These days"? What kind of dope are you smoking that you
>> >> think it's _ever_ been otherwise?
>> > Re-using the same name is a relatively new fad.
>> No, not really. Outright remakes have been around for decades.
>> > Making idiotic changes and remaking older shows / movies is
>> > not new though.
>> There hasn't been anything new since about the third movie
>> made. And movies were nothing new to storytelling, which goes
>> back to before humans evolved.
> As I said, remakes are not new, the fad of re-using the same
> name (to the degree the lazy hacks in Hollyweird are doing now)
> is relatively new.
Not really. There have been outright remkes of movies, as I said, for decades. TV shows for less time, if only because TV has been around for less time.
-- Terry Austin
"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek
