Sherlock

[pauljholden]

It is very strongly hinted when they're searching for drugs (so strongly they did everything but whip out a big sign saying "Holmes does drugs")

-pj

[Mardroid]

nicotine patches were a cop out, though, as 'Olmes was fond of 'is opium, guv.

Nar, opium was never Holmes vice. He was more of a cocaine man.

I liked the Nicotine patch idea. The silliness appealed (although there's something about stuff oozing through the skin into one's veins I find a bit nasty too).

[Emperor]

I think, uh, sheepishly I may reassess it. Funny old mood last night, I guess it was that same "I was ready to hate it" scenario only I followed through. I will try again with a "well everyone on the boards, facebook and twitter seems to think it's acceptable, don't be such a stubborn arse" scenario.

No! Don't go with the herd, you should be allowed to hate what you like (as long as you have a well-reasoned argument for it ). It can be your "thing", it is an ice-breaker at parties "oh you are the one who hates Sherlock?" and lead to plenty of debates that'd go long into the night "now let me explain why you are wrong!!" You could form a club with SmallBlueThing.

nicotine patches were a cop out, though, as 'Olmes was fond of 'is opium, guv.

Nar, opium was never Holmes vice. He was more of a cocaine man.

I thought it was a replacement for the pipe which he'd smoke when he was musing on a mystery. The drugs is a whole different ball game.

[ghostpockets]

I think, uh, sheepishly I may reassess it. Funny old mood last night, I guess it was that same "I was ready to hate it" scenario only I followed through. I will try again with a "well everyone on the boards, facebook and twitter seems to think it's acceptable, don't be such a stubborn arse" scenario.

BAA-RAM-EWE!!!

I haven't seen it yet but as a hater of both Doctor Who (Burrrrrn the unbeliever!) and The League of Unamusing Gentleman I don't hold out much hope. I imagine it will be about as good as that JEKYLL crap from a few years back.

[COMMANDO FORCES]

The pistol shot would have been extremely unlikely.

For a start, he was a doctor (unless he's a marksman as well) and so would hardly ever touch a weapon. I think they are issued with a sidearm but they only choose to use this as the last resort and in self defence.

Lets say the window he was shooting out of was open (I can't remember), then the distance between the two buildings (nothing visible to indicate wind speed and direction), the glass of the closed window (I'm sure that would give a slight refraction). All these add up to make that shot pretty amazing.
All short barreled weapons are used for close combat and due to the length of the barrel itself become less accurate, even over a short distance.

I would go on about 'rifling' but if you want to see what that's all about give it a google.

I only say this as it was asked earlier 

[pauljholden]

I think, uh, sheepishly I may reassess it. Funny old mood last night, I guess it was that same "I was ready to hate it" scenario only I followed through. I will try again with a "well everyone on the boards, facebook and twitter seems to think it's acceptable, don't be such a stubborn arse" scenario.

BAA-RAM-EWE!!!

I haven't seen it yet but as a hater of both Doctor Who (Burrrrrn the unbeliever!) and The League of Unamusing Gentleman I don't hold out much hope. I imagine it will be about as good as that JEKYLL crap from a few years back.

Hehe. I don't think you could be any more contrary than if you walked backwards and stuck a hat on your ass...

-pj

[ghostpockets]

I CAN! And I WILL! Sounds like a good look actually, I may have to try it.

I am going to watch this tonight out of morbid curiousity... it'll be mighty embarassing if I have to recant.... 

[pauljholden]

You might have to eat your ass hat in that case...

-pj

[SmallBlueThing]

I haven't seen it yet but as a hater of both Doctor Who (Burrrrrn the unbeliever!) and The League of Unamusing Gentleman I don't hold out much hope. I imagine it will be about as good as that JEKYLL crap from a few years back.

Moffat Who? Shit, yep. League of Gents? Good when it started, peaked in series two, then became unwatchable. Jekyll? Spectacularly bad!

Sir, we are on the same page. Let's start a club!

SBT

[Dan Kelly]

Really enjoyed it.  Some of the visual flourishes were a bit meh - especially the overhead map which went on a bit long, but mostly good.

Loved the three patch problem - a replacement for ACDs "Three Pipe problem" in the books as I recall...

Some on Twitter were complaining that Holmes was arrogant, which is surely missing the point somewhat.

BTW 221b Baker Street

[Minkyboy]

The pistol shot would have been extremely unlikely.

For a start, he was a doctor (unless he's a marksman as well) and so would hardly ever touch a weapon. I think they are issued with a sidearm but they only choose to use this as the last resort and in self defence.

Lets say the window he was shooting out of was open (I can't remember), then the distance between the two buildings (nothing visible to indicate wind speed and direction), the glass of the closed window (I'm sure that would give a slight refraction). All these add up to make that shot pretty amazing.
All short barreled weapons are used for close combat and due to the length of the barrel itself become less accurate, even over a short distance.

I would go on about 'rifling' but if you want to see what that's all about give it a google.

I only say this as it was asked earlier 

That is pretty much what I expected.
Thanks CF

[CrazyFoxMachine]

Okay - finally watched it properly. It was fairly engaging and the performances were good. Couldn't help shake the fact that Cumberpatch sounded and looked like Robert Webb, and then I couldn't shake the fact that a Sir Digby Chicken Caesar drama would be more entertaining.

The visual 'evidence' was far too dumb for me, felt like some moron in marketing had decided it would add a snazzy modern CSI vibe to it (think about it, when the facts appeared he immediately explained them, so why have them in the first place).

I did like it though - and I do like Moffat. I do. He's a clever writer and he made Who good again (although yes Jekyll was absolute phallus although with a good twist).

Not really at all familiar with Holmes mythos so I'm in the perfect position to let inaccuracies and character flaws go.

Hows that for constructive?

[Professah Byah]

House is already Sherlock Holmes in the present day, so I don't think the setting will annoy me as much as that the BBC are regurgitating US shows yet again and hoping the Middle England settings stops anyone with a tv and an attention span of thirty seconds or more from noticing... um, what was I saying again?  Oh yeah - this Sherlock looks like an original spin on the character.  I'll give it a watch and hope it's as good as Stargate Universe, etcetera.

Nothing's original anymore.  As long as this is shiny and loud I'll be happy enough.

[ghostpockets]

iIplayer wouldn't work for me all evening, like it was warning me away. But I got it working now so I shall endure and return later with a Solomon-like pronouncement....

Moffat Who? Shit, yep. League of Gents? Good when it started, peaked in series two, then became unwatchable. Jekyll? Spectacularly bad!

Sir, we are on the same page. Let's start a club!

SBT

Heck yeah! We need to think up a good name though, one that will look good on the back of a baseball jacket.

[Albion]

League of Gents? Good when it started, peaked in series two, then became unwatchable.

I'm a big fan of The League but series three, though not unwatchable, was harder to watch and not as good as the previous two until....I watched it all in one go. When I watched the lot in one sitting it all came together so much better and was a joy to behold.