Sherlock!

[pastafarian]

Well would you like to see Arnold Schwarzenegger in adaptation of Romeo and Juliet instead of Leonardo Di Caprio?

Heck YEAH! :dancing2:

In Terminator character please.

Justin Beeber as Juliet?

Throw in a sharknado or two and ....perfection!

 

[EarlyMon]

"Elementary my dear Juliet. It was not the sharktopus keeping us apart at all.

It was the sharknado!

Now it is time for Brazilian sharknado bait. I'll be back."

 

[davoid]

Heck YEAH! :dancing2:

LOL that seriously made me laugh

 

[SiempreTuna]

Have to say that I really like CucumberPatch's interpretation of Holmes and I can definitely see where it comes from: in the original stories, Holmes is a bit OCD/autistic - poor interpersonal skills, obsessively studying things like tabaccos, handwriting, every criminal case in Europe and the US etc etc. It is kinda all there in Conan Doyle's writing, if not quite so front and centre.

It is sometimes bit difficult relating the episode names back to the original stories they're named after, but I actually kinda like that: if they followed the original story lines too closely it would be a bit dull as there's not much mystery left after you've seen a dozen different versions of the same story

 

[Hadron]

Game of Thrones? They match perfectly.

Depends on how literal you wish to be. Shaun Bean is at least 20 years older than Eddard Stark, for example, and Peter Dinklage is much better looking than Tyrion Lannister is described (even before events took their toll). The important thing is portraying the character, of course.

But Sherlock is quite deliberately an adaptation, not an attempt to portray Conan Doyle's stories and characters as written. Holmes growing up in the late 20th/early 21st century would differ from Conan Doyle's Holmes, so even the most faithful of updatings should give you a Holmes who is different in some respects from Doyle's character.

I mean come on I don't drink often but my phone charging port is all scratched up, and I only drink beer once in few weeks. It's like walking up to someone saying "You look so happy today, you probably got laid last night" It's just sounds like a stupid assumption and not a diduction method.

Have you read Conan Doyle's stories? Many of Holmes' deductions (really "inductions") are far from watertight! That much is consistent - the idea that he'd miss or misinterpret something ("sister!") is the bigger difference.

BTW I found the first 2 episodes of this series disappointing, but the third was much better.

 

[EarlyMon]

S3E1 The Empty Hearse starts in two and a half hours for me.

I don't care if it's good or not, it's Sherlock and I've been waiting.

 

[EarlyMon]

I don't care if it was good or not.

I thoroughly enjoyed it!

So, it was good for me.

 

[davoid]

I thoroughly enjoyed it!

So, it was good for me.

Yes the various speculations as to the mystery of the series 2 finale were funny. I do agree with Hadron however that the first two episodes weren't as good as they could have been - a lot of time spent on Watson's necessary readjustment (trying to be as spoiler-free as possible here through vague generalization).

But the third episode is full of surprises and far surpasses the other two episodes. Great stuff.

 

[EarlyMon]

I'll say this - I tend to enjoy a lot (not all) of the detective series rolling out of the UK and my new favorite has to be George Gently.

 

[unnamedny]

I'll say this - I tend to enjoy a lot (not all) of the detective series rolling out of the UK and my new favorite has to be George Gently.

New Sherlock is such a cont..... cont.... cont....inuous (sorry, stutter problem) source of inspiration ;-)