![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Reaction - A Study in Pink
Jun. 19th, 2011 01:27 amUltimately an enjoyable episode overall, and even surprising. I wasn't sure what to expect going in, but if what Moffat & co were going for was a re-envisioned homage to STUD, I'd say they got it in one.
And when it comes down to it, that's what it was, only infinitely better than anything Tim Burton has re-envisioned. It's the same characters and premise, but under a completely different setting. Setting it in the modern world makes every bit of sense though. ACD's Holmes was always at the cutting edge of science. In the very beginning of STUD, he was devising a new way of analysing blood stains. No-one had done that before, but Holmes knew it would be useful.
So why should a new series be set in a time warp? Sticking him back in Victorian England would, to a modern fan, completely negate the appearance of new technology. Holmes has to be using smart phones and GPS tracking to solve these crimes. Although, I'm very curious to see what Moffat & co do with the Baker Street Irregulars.
I particularly liked the portrayal of Holmes as a younger man. While I will always be a fan of Jeremy Brett, having him younger feels like a direct callback to STUD, where Holmes was described as being quite young. Cumberbatch manages this look quite nicely (with the blogs having Watson describe him as looking 'about twelve,' which is a fairly accurate assessment, I'd say). I was also wondering how they were going to handle the addiction aspect, and thought they did a very good job at addressing it without getting preachy. One thing I don't agree with is the sociopath thing. That very much felt like a self-diagnosis, but I can almost guarantee that the younger fans will latch onto that and play it for every penny it's worth (which isn't much). That was a defensive reaction geared at excusing his own behaviour toward the matter. I've never heard of a 'high functioning' sociopath. There are high functioning other things, but not that. But everything about him does do the part for Holmes (and aren't you lot from HC eating your words now?).
The sheer amount of call-backs and references to canon are what really cemented everything for me. The meeting at Bart's was straight out of canon, and the little things like the three patch problem and the twisting of Rache. But that's my big problem with it as well. Everything was the same (I'd put money on it that the cabbie was even called Hope in the script). And yet, through all of these minor twists, they left the killer the same. I wanted him to be the American in the back. I thought for sure Holmes had the answer when he asked 'who hunts in the middle of a crowd.' And why use the line, 'wrong country, good alibi,' if you're not going to come back to that? That isn't even shoddy deduction work; that's just Moffat being an arse.
Overall, maybe not the best adaptation. I'll wait until the mid-series break to form a stronger opinion. Far from the worst, though. I'd put it right up there with Granada.
And when it comes down to it, that's what it was, only infinitely better than anything Tim Burton has re-envisioned. It's the same characters and premise, but under a completely different setting. Setting it in the modern world makes every bit of sense though. ACD's Holmes was always at the cutting edge of science. In the very beginning of STUD, he was devising a new way of analysing blood stains. No-one had done that before, but Holmes knew it would be useful.
So why should a new series be set in a time warp? Sticking him back in Victorian England would, to a modern fan, completely negate the appearance of new technology. Holmes has to be using smart phones and GPS tracking to solve these crimes. Although, I'm very curious to see what Moffat & co do with the Baker Street Irregulars.
I particularly liked the portrayal of Holmes as a younger man. While I will always be a fan of Jeremy Brett, having him younger feels like a direct callback to STUD, where Holmes was described as being quite young. Cumberbatch manages this look quite nicely (with the blogs having Watson describe him as looking 'about twelve,' which is a fairly accurate assessment, I'd say). I was also wondering how they were going to handle the addiction aspect, and thought they did a very good job at addressing it without getting preachy. One thing I don't agree with is the sociopath thing. That very much felt like a self-diagnosis, but I can almost guarantee that the younger fans will latch onto that and play it for every penny it's worth (which isn't much). That was a defensive reaction geared at excusing his own behaviour toward the matter. I've never heard of a 'high functioning' sociopath. There are high functioning other things, but not that. But everything about him does do the part for Holmes (and aren't you lot from HC eating your words now?).
The sheer amount of call-backs and references to canon are what really cemented everything for me. The meeting at Bart's was straight out of canon, and the little things like the three patch problem and the twisting of Rache. But that's my big problem with it as well. Everything was the same (I'd put money on it that the cabbie was even called Hope in the script). And yet, through all of these minor twists, they left the killer the same. I wanted him to be the American in the back. I thought for sure Holmes had the answer when he asked 'who hunts in the middle of a crowd.' And why use the line, 'wrong country, good alibi,' if you're not going to come back to that? That isn't even shoddy deduction work; that's just Moffat being an arse.
Overall, maybe not the best adaptation. I'll wait until the mid-series break to form a stronger opinion. Far from the worst, though. I'd put it right up there with Granada.
