The acting is well done, yes, but I would recommend that they stick more closely to the novels, updating Holmes - all right - but make a good story of it too.

Overrated? By whom? Are you referring to the positive remarks or do you think the fandom goes too far?
Though, I would never describe the plot as 'easy'. Again, the plot is just a minor point, the series focuses clearly on the main characters. In my opinion it's always nice when you can get excited about something.
 

Jacco111 wrote:

but in my opinion the series should stick more closely to the original Holmes, also in the plotlines. 

But this has been done before many times. Maybe the Jeremy Brett series might suit you best.

What I meant was, keep the modern Holmes (original idea, nothing wrong with doing it) and modernize the ACD stories, but keep the structure and plots. A little twist isn't necessarily bad, but making a (less good) other story of it is, in my opinion, not the best way of doing it.

IMO, Sherlock is unique because of the camera work and the inventive script. This Sherlock is not just CSI Baker Street which would be boring. We have seen almost everything -CSI in american TV before.
In BBC Sherlock there are many layers to detect, double meaning and metaphors, funny puns and a puzzle that keeps the audience thinking about the plot and the relationships.
Sherlock made me and many people read the canon in english to get acess to the original Sherlock Holmes character.
I haven't seen anything like that in televison in my life.
 

But then, I may be a bit too old-fashioned in this case

It's just that I read the Holmes stories at a very young age (I believe I was about 7 when I first read 'The Hound of the Baskervilles' ) and I feel a very strong connection with the stories. I understand that it is different for someone who saw Sherlock first and read the stories after. 

In my case it was different: I read the whole canon long, long ago and liked it. And then, decades later, I discovered SH again via the movies and Sherlock. And I got really hooked, read part of the canon again and some very good pastiches. I'm no purist. I love how there are so many ways to take on the case work and the personal relationships. 
And - this may sound very "blasphemous" - none of the original stories gripped me as hard as Sherlock and some of the fanfics and pastiches I read. I must admit I sometimes forgot to breathe which never happened when reading the canon. 

As for the Jeremy Brett series, I gave it a fair try but could never connect to it. I know it's almost sacrosanct but for me it simply doesn't work. 

I'm aware of the fact that without ACD's creations we wouldn't be here today. But as with Shakespeare - and this is meant as a compliment - the wonderful thing is how the works last just because they are interpreted and adapted to the changing times again and again. 

I think that the version with Jeremy Brett stuck so close to the original, the "real" Holmes and the rest of the canon, that there is no need to adapt it so closely again. Why would you want to replace a well done show with something equally well, just newer?

I must admit that I had problems with reading the canon stories before "Sherlock". When I read something, I always see the action in my head, like a film, but I never managed to see Holmes. He always turned out to be some kind of animation character. That is fine with me if the entire action is animated, like it happens when I read Discworld novels. But Watson and every else have always been real persons, just Holmes refused to come real. Now when I read the stories I can lean back and enjoy imagining Benedict as Sherlock in funny clothings and I grew extremely fond of the canon.

By the way, I think ending the pool dilemma simply by a phone call was the cleverest way to do a cliffhanger I've ever seen - and I must admit that I've seen many and many of them from all kind of shows.

Jacco111 wrote:

But then, I may be a bit too old-fashioned in this case

It's just that I read the Holmes stories at a very young age (I believe I was about 7 when I first read 'The Hound of the Baskervilles' ) and I feel a very strong connection with the stories. I understand that it is different for someone who saw Sherlock first and read the stories after. 

According to me - and, yes, I´ve read all of the stories when I was young as well! - BBC Sherlock brings the original spirit to us. With a lot of quotes and nods and subtle allusions to ACD. Moffat and Gatiss never really break that, although the stories are new invented or patchworked. But the original spirit, the pattern of them, the relations and basic characters are absolutely true to me. For me the whole series is a "Gesamtkunstwerk", which is defined by the passion of all participants: The writers first of all, but also the actors, the composers (!), the screen builders, camera people, the directors, prop masters, everybody. They all got infected from the writers and, of course, ACD. That is, what makes "Sherlock" so special, so extraordinary. "There´s so much love about it" Andrew Scott once said and one can feel that.
I don´t have any problems with changing the stories, at least because a lot of the original stories couldn´t happen nowadays like they were. And I have seen already a lot of the older Sherlock Holmes-films  - I don´t need this in a new version only with new camera technologies and new actors. What for, they are done, we already have them! Sherlock is a very sensitive adaptation, which never looses the contact to the canon (like e.g. "Elementary" does). I adore that.
I am not such a fan of Johnlock stories as well, most of them bore me (but, honestly, I didn´t read too many), But, on the other hand, if somebody likes that - why not? It has a lot to do with their own fantasy, the fantasy of the readers, so, if they like it, it´s absolutely fine with me. It has not much to do with "Sherlock", so it can´t be a point against that series. "Sherlock" at the utmost arouses the fantasies, which could be another quality of the series, although it´s not my cup of tea. But, at this point of time, there is no Johnlock in "Sherlock", just little nods to some interpretations. What is fine, it´s part of the whole canon.
So, no, I don´t think "Sherlock" is overrated, it´s a fine, clever piece of arts, which never looses the contact to the heart of ACD.

Last edited by anjaH_alias (March 18, 2013 3:30 pm)