[Scarabin]

Is not "Intelligence" Sherlock Holmes in modern dress? If so I did watch one episode, but for me SH must have the Victorian milieu. Up against modern police procedure it seems silly.

[GreenMan]

Scarabin, on 2013-December-23, 03:11, said:

Is not "Intelligence" Sherlock Holmes in modern dress? If so I did watch one episode, but for me SH must have the Victorian milieu. Up against modern police procedure it seems silly.

Intelligence (the U.S. series) has not aired yet, and it's a techno-spy thriller. You may be thinking of Elementary.

(There was a Canadian crime series also called Intelligence that went off the air in 2007.)

[kenberg]

Scarabin, on 2013-December-22, 22:16, said:

Perhaps TV series rely too much on ending every episode with a cliffhanger and that's why the final episode flops? Farewelled Homeland 3 & The Killing 3 without too much heartburning. Prisoners of War 2 still has 2 episodes to go but the weaknesses are beginning to show. Oh well, I guess being mystified is more exciting than resolving improbable plots. What will be the next hit?

I have not yet watched the final Homeland, but I take your point.

And another, hardly original with me, observation is that a good story is not necessarily a story that can continue for several seasons at a high level. In fact, being a good story might be incompatible with a several season run. Most of us have some crap that we watch. We know it's not much good but we know what we will be getting and we open some wine or whatever, flip the switch, and zone out. That stuff can continue for ten seasons or more. No one expects much. But if you see something with an interesting inventive story, you come to expect that level from the series, and it just isn't possible for the writers to keep it up.Einstein published three major papers in 1905. I have no idea what he did in 1906.

[blackshoe]

kenberg, on 2013-December-23, 09:15, said:

Einstein published three major papers in 1905. I have no idea what he did in 1906.

He took a nap.

Edit: actually, according to wikipedia, he was pretty prolific. He published a couple of dozen papers in 1905, not just the three major ones. He only published five in 1906. His last publication appears to have been in 1955, the year in which he died.

[barmar]

kenberg, on 2013-December-23, 09:15, said:

I have not yet watched the final Homeland, but I take your point.

And another, hardly original with me, observation is that a good story is not necessarily a story that can continue for several seasons at a high level. In fact, being a good story might be incompatible with a several season run. Most of us have some crap that we watch. We know it's not much good but we know what we will be getting and we open some wine or whatever, flip the switch, and zone out. That stuff can continue for ten seasons or more. No one expects much. But if you see something with an interesting inventive story, you come to expect that level from the series, and it just isn't possible for the writers to keep it up.Einstein published three major papers in 1905. I have no idea what he did in 1906.

This is often cited as the reason why cable TV tends to have higher quality shows than broadcast TV. Most shows on the broadcast networks have seasons of 22-26 episodes each year, and they hope for them to be ongoing. It's hard for the writers to maintain a high quality when they have to produce that much quantity. And they can't follow the tried-and-true story-telling model of beginning-middle-end if they don't know when the end will be.

Cable TV also has the problem that series are usually intended to be ongoing, but they have shorter seasons so the writers are less likely to run out of ideas early on. The cable networks also tend to give shows time to find their audience, so the writers don't have to be so desperate to grab the audience at the beginning -- they can write more deliberately. If the show is reasonably successful, the producers will generally be able to work with the cable network to determine how long the show will run, and they can then plot it out with a known ending time. Breaking Bad is an excellent example of a show that worked towards their definite ending -- the entire series can be viewed as an epic story. Dexter, even though they knew when the story was ending, seemed to lose it in the climax.

[mike777]

Enjoy watching the old tv series Rockford Files on Netflix.

[Scarabin]

GreenMan, on 2013-December-23, 04:55, said:

Intelligence (the U.S. series) has not aired yet, and it's a techno-spy thriller. You may be thinking of Elementary.

(There was a Canadian crime series also called Intelligence that went off the air in 2007.)

Thanks. I was thinking of Elementary. Will watch for Intelligence.

[kenberg]

I mentioned above that we all have things we watch that we don't expect all that much of. Elementary falls into that category for me. Mt wife likes Lucy Liu and has seen her in other things (some version of Charlie's Angels maybe?) . Sherlock is a caricature of the old Sherlock, but I was never that fond of the old Sherlock anyway, either in the original or in the various dramatizations, so I don't much mind. White Collar is another show that I watch but don't really think is much of anything.

With shows that I really like, Homeland for example, I largely remember the background storyline. With others, Elementary for example, I remember there is some woman in Sherlock's London past who is dead, or was thought to be dead and turned up alive, or maybe is evil, and is named or code-name Moriarty or something, but I don't much remember or care. It's like trying to remember whether some snack you had at a party did or did not have walnuts in it. Doesn't matter.

And even with Homeland, it has run its natural life span. Guests are supposed to leave the party before the hosts come out in their pajamas and start yawning.

[y66]

We've been watching Borgen season 1. Just watched episode 4. I'm hooked.

[Vampyr]

Scarabin, on 2013-December-23, 03:11, said:

Is not "Intelligence" Sherlock Holmes in modern dress? If so I did watch one episode, but for me SH must have the Victorian milieu. Up against modern police procedure it seems silly.

I find the character in Sherlock to be much more "Sherlock Holmes-ish" than the one in Elementary. But I am a late comer to the former show, and will be disappointed if there turns out to be no problem with drug addiction. I am a fan of Holmes in general, and would not like to see a sanitised version of him. Already the Holmes in Elementary does not smoke and the one in Sherlock is trying to quit with patches.

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2014-January-15, 02:55, said:

I find the character in Sherlock to be much more "Sherlock Holmes-ish" than the one in Elementary. But I am a late comer to the former show, and will be disappointed if there turns out to be no problem with drug addiction. I am a fan of Holmes in general, and would not like to see a sanitised version of him. Already the Holmes in Elementary does not smoke and the one in Sherlock is trying to quit with patches.

"Elementary's" Holmes is a recovering addict. I haven't seen "Sherlock".

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2014-January-15, 05:29, said:

"Elementary's" Holmes is a recovering addict.

Yes, I had thought that that qualified as a "problem", though it is still slightly disappointing.

[billw55]

I enjoy Elementary and find the lead characters to be well developed, compared to most crime shows. Perhaps I have accepted this altered version of Holmes and Watson more easily because I am not burdened with expectations, having seen no previous screen presentations. Well, except for some American action-style movies which are really so far off that they don't even cross my mind.

[Vampyr]

billw55, on 2014-January-15, 07:19, said:

I enjoy Elementary and find the lead characters to be well developed, compared to most crime shows. Perhaps I have accepted this altered version of Holmes and Watson more easily because I am not burdened with expectations, having seen no previous screen presentations. Well, except for some American action-style movies which are really so far off that they don't even cross my mind.

I have enjoyed "classic" renditions of Holmes and Watson; Jeremy Brett stands out IMO as particularly good. In any case, though, even if you have only read the books you will have expectations.

[GreenMan]

I'm still not sure what to make of Elementary, but I found this take on Roger Ebert's site intriguing:

Quote

Most radically, Doyle's stick figure of a detective is made a fully fleshed human, in stories free of the ultra-violent problem-solving and standard-brand cynicism that soils the likes of "The Blacklist." Not many shows—cable or network—have the courage and heart to end an episode as "Elementary" did, leaving quandaries unresolved as its characters notice, together, wordlessly, the healing beauty of the East River at sunset.

The show's triumph starts with the casting of Jonny Lee Miller as Holmes. Frail, tattooed and muscularly stringy from anxiety-control calisthenics, Miller's the most physical iteration of the detective, an ex-addict whose deduction obsessions are most valuable for keeping him focused on the straight and narrow. He shares an un-renovated Brooklyn brownstone with Dr. Watson, at first merely his 'sober companion', but quickly an intellectual peer whose insights he quickly comes to respect and utilize.

But the most radical rewrite in "Elementary" is the way the wrapper says "Sherlock Homes" while the actual item is a twofer. At its core, "Elementary," is the story of two people who met just after hitting bottom, and what happens after that.

... Looking at Doherty's resume, I couldn't help but notice his work as a writer on "Star Trek: Voyager," which for seven seasons used the same additive technique to tell the very slow but steady growth of the human-turned-Borg, Seven of Nine, from heartless semi-automaton to full-fledged human—without explicitly telling that story, but via the steady accumulation of incident and growth. It was a story told via the narrative of memory: Seven's and ours.

It's a mode that assumes viewer attention, a respectful mode. A perfect example of additive stand-alone storytelling is this show's means of showing [how] Holmes is coming to respect Watson, without any obvious signals or landmark moments.

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2014-January-15, 07:30, said:

I have enjoyed "classic" renditions of Holmes and Watson; Jeremy Brett stands out IMO as particularly good. In any case, though, even if you have only read the books you will have expectations.

I get the impression these days that only old fogies (like me) read books. Agree about Jeremy Brett. Along similar lines, and although I don't recall ever seeing the series, I can't picture William Shatner (pre-Star Trek, iirc) as Archie Goodwin.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2014-January-15, 20:18, said:

I get the impression these days that only old fogies (like me) read books. Agree about Jeremy Brett. Along similar lines, and although I don't recall ever seeing the series, I can't picture William Shatner (pre-Star Trek, iirc) as Archie Goodwin.

Love the books, would watch a series with anyone at all playing Wolfe and Goodwin. I have heard of the series, but have also never seen it. I can picture Shatner being quite good in the role.

[Scarabin]

As regards Sherlock Holmes, I still think that if he's not some freakish genius whose methods are far above his contemporaries, then it's just not a Sherlock Holmes story.

Saw the concluding episode of "Prisoners of war" (second series) last night. Perhaps a bit anti-climactic but at least it signals a third series?

[blackshoe]

Scarabin, on 2014-January-15, 23:38, said:

As regards Sherlock Holmes, I still think that if he's not some freakish genius whose methods are far above his contemporaries, then it's just not a Sherlock Holmes story.

Saw the concluding episode of "Prisoners of war" (second series) last night. Perhaps a bit anti-climactic but at least it signals a third series?

The third series is what's playing on PBS here now, apparently. I just added it to my watch list.

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2014-January-15, 22:43, said:

Love the books, would watch a series with anyone at all playing Wolfe and Goodwin. I have heard of the series, but have also never seen it. I can picture Shatner being quite good in the role.

I suppose I was spoiled by the Maury Chaykin/Timothy Hutton version. But yeah, I'd watch just about any version.

Three books I wish I still had: William S. Baring-Gould's Sherlock Holmes of Baker Street and Nero Wolfe of West Thirty Fifth Street. In the latter, Baring-Gould suggested that during the four years after the incident at Reichenbach Falls, Holmes spent time in Montenegro with Irene Adler, out of which she gained a son who she raised in New Jersey - and who later took the name Nero Wolfe. The third book was by Philip Jose Farmer, and it tied together the genealogies of a lot of fictional characters: Holmes, Wolfe, Professor Challenger, Tarzan, John Carter, and many others. Don't remember the title.

Ah. It was two books: Tarzan Alive and Doc Savage: His Apocalyptic Life, based on a concept called "the Wold Newton family". Thank you, Google and Wikipedia