Thanks Susi. Do you think I should update The Abominable Bride imdb cast listing (at the moment Natasha O'Keeffe is listed without her character name), or would that be a spoiler?

ukaunz wrote:

Thanks Susi. Do you think I should update The Abominable Bride imdb cast listing (at the moment Natasha O'Keeffe is listed without her character name), or would that be a spoiler?

I do not think so. And I suppose they are going to delete it if that was the case. 

So here is a little summary from Radio Times:

Sherlock: The Abominable Bride
Sherlock goes back in time to 1895… or does he?  The Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman drama returns for Christmas with a twist. As the BBC statement has it: “We've been here before - but what if this wasn't the modern day but the late Victorian period? What if the world's most famous consulting detective and his best friend lived in a Baker Street of steam trains, hansom cabs, top hats and frock-coats? Welcome to 'Sherlock' in 1895!
“Some things, though, remain reassuringly the same. Friendship, adventure and especially, MURDER...
“Why is Thomas Ricoletti a little surprised to see his wife dressed in her old wedding gown?  Because, just a few hours before, she took her own life...
“Mrs Ricoletti's ghost now appears to be prowling the streets with an unslakeable thirst for revenge. From fog-shrouded Limehouse to the bowels of a ruined church, Holmes, Watson and their friends must use all their cunning to combat an enemy seemingly from beyond the grave and the final, shocking truth about...the Abominable Bride!”

http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2015-11-24/sherlock-doctor-who-david-walliams-and-dickens-lead-bbc-tv-christmas-offerings

Very, very interesting! It sounds like a cool plot!

That is very, very interesting.

Good interview.

That was a great interview, and it's stalled some of my worst fears! 

I was intrigued by this part...

... I’m sure he’ll wear his coat again. It’s like the hair, the coat, the key ingredients… but what really brings me back for more cross-generationally is just the evolution of him and the characters within the stories that you know and the stories that we create out of the stories you know. That’s the real level of engagement with him I enjoy, the stuck-on bits of the doll will hopefully change at some point because what goes on underneath has to change a lot as well. As an actor, that’s what intrigues us all to come back and play these characters is that there is scope for them to expand and change and evolve.

I like that BC sees the character as so much more than the "stuck-on bits of the doll" (the hair, the coat) and is much more interested in Holmes evolving and changing. 

It makes me wonder how some fans will view this if it comes to the regular series.  There are a lot of comments on this board about Sherlock's curls, and many, many posts about the love of "The Coat".  It isn't a secret that Ben hasn't much love for the hair (re: the opening lines of this interview "I was thrilled! I went, at last, I can have a fucking haircut [laughter] I can slick it back and not have that ridiculous mop of curls on my head.").  I got the distinct impression that one of the things that BC loved about doing the Victorian special was that he saw it as an opportunity to do the same character but without the usual trappings that some use to define him and to let people see that the character is so much more than a curly hairstyle and a great coat.  Maybe this special could be considered a trial balloon in regards to shedding some of the surface aspects and allowing the regular series character to develop differently in appearance as well (and thus be a outward way of manifesting inward change).

The other part that interested me (as non-Johnlocker) was this little exchange...

Is there still the ‘bromance’?

BC:You just really want to write the word ‘bromance’ [laughter]

There can’t be an article without it in there!

BC:There can. You can be the first! Strive for change in the press. [Laughter]

BC:It’s definitely a companionship that’s evolved in our version, so we’re not regressing it back to ‘wow! Golly Holmes’ or some kind of Nigel Bruce-esque adoration, it’s more complex than that. It is an examination of what they were in the original stories but with our flavour.

I know I am in a distinct minority on this board and it is just my personal opinion, of course, but it does my non-shipping heart good to see that BC still seems to be adamant about having the actual characters not fall into the realm of fanfiction.  I love that he reiterates that their relationship is a complex companionship of respect, not some dewy-eyed bromance. 

I am really looking forward to seeing this special - from all the pictures it looks to be gorgeously photographed.  Everything looks spectacular - especially the boys!

Can't wait!

-Val

Ah-chie: I really do not want to go to deeply into this but I cannot leave this unanswered. We have hundreds of pages on this board showing how the creators use stylistic means, the script itself, acting choices, and lots of other aspects to show that this is a love story. This is not about fanfiction but about what many people see in the show itself. Moreover, we are talking about a grown-up love story between two men and not, as you chose to call it, a "dewy-eyed" bromance. (Apart from the fact that "bromance" is an artificial construct nobody seems to be able to explain in a satisfactory way). And I am very glad that Benedict does not seem to like this silly word either.

IMO this discussion is not about majorities or minorities but about showing respect for each other's opinion. 

And another thing: "but with our flavour" is highly open to interpretation if you ask me. 


 

Last edited by SusiGo (November 24, 2015 10:06 pm)

I think the quote definitely refers to "companionship". 

BC:It’s definitely a companionship that’s evolved in our version, so we’re not regressing it back to ‘wow! Golly Holmes’ or some kind of Nigel Bruce-esque adoration, it’s more complex than that. It is an examination of what they were in the original stories but with our flavour.

"Of what they were" seems to refer to Holmes and Watson's companionship if I am not very much mistaken.