Fairly Pointless Entry (TM)
Jan. 24th, 2013 06:35 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
wiseheartIn which I complain about still being sick and snipe about "Elementary" and gush about "Sherlock BBC". You've been warned.
Because I've got nothing new to report, really. Am still sick like a dog (this is the 5th week of it), I still haven't seen "The Hobbit" (because attempting to watch a 3-hour-film with horrible coughing attacks at every 20 minutes would get me lynched), and if it continues on like this, I may never see it in the cinema, as they'll take it off the programme. Writing still doesn't go as I'd like it to go, due to illness and insane working hours (although I did get one single good idea for "Sea Flower"), neither of which is supportive for creative work. Gah, I'm just miserable. :((
Decided to give "Elementary" another try, though. Last week's episode was hideously boring, and I haven't managed to bring up any sympathy for either of the main characters. They are still deathly dull, and there is zero chemistry between them. And no, I'm not speaking about UST, which, frankly, is boring, too. I'm speaking of any believable reason why I should care for either of them: tattooed!Holmes with his wooden face or wilted!female!Watson with her glassy eyes.
Last time they tried to make me bellieve that Watson used to have a relationship with a pretty boy half her age, who was still pining after her. Oh, please! Age difference aside - cos I'd be the first to say that women also have the right to make a bloody fool of themselves, believing that a much younger partner would love them for their wonderful personality alone - why would he be pining after a dead woman? Because that's what Lucy Liu's Watson very obviously is: a zombie.
Okay, I'm probably biased (probably? hah!), but how could one even mention such wooden characters in the same breath as the wonderful chemistry between Benedict Cumberbatch's Sherlock and Martin Freeman's John? I went into Sherlock with a tabula rasa: never seen either of the actors before, and was very suspicious about the whole modernization thing. I was converted about twenty minutes into watching my first episode - which happened to be the unaired pilot. Things only got better from there.
I've re-watched "Sherlock" uncounted times since then. Yes, it does have its week points. *cough*main-plot-of-ep-02*cough*. What keeps me watching it again and again are the main characters/lead actors. They can lead entire communications via frowns and quirky eyebrows. Not that the dialogue weren't fantastic, mind you, but they don't really need it, not always. And then the third party of the triangle: Mycroft. I'm mutating into a devout Mycroft fan, which is weird, because he's the antithesis of practically everything I like in a guy. But I can't help it.
I hope we'll get to see more of the supporting characters in Series 3. Mrs Hudson deserves more screen time. So does Lestrade. And I'd like to see some character development with Sally Donovan. I like Sally, despite everything. I'd like her to break up with that stupid Anderson and find a guy who'd deserve her. Oh, oh, and I'd like to see Mike Stamford again! And Anthea! And Molly! Even Sebastian Wilkes!
Okay, shutting up now. But you see my point. The only character I didn't particularly like was Moriarty. Not because he was evil - every story needs a villain. I didn't like him because of the insanity. Yes, I know all the reasons. I still didn't like him. Sorry.
In that spirit, I'm gonna watch "Elementary" tonight again. Until we get some more "Sherlock", there's joy in mocking the stupid. It's funny, really, seeing as how many gushing reviews it gets all over the Net. It's like fanfiction, I guess: crap is always very popular. So I'll watch Mr. Muscle-bound Tattoo and the Zombie Woman and will have my personal little snark feast. Since GAFF is gone (and good riddance, honestly).
Because I've got nothing new to report, really. Am still sick like a dog (this is the 5th week of it), I still haven't seen "The Hobbit" (because attempting to watch a 3-hour-film with horrible coughing attacks at every 20 minutes would get me lynched), and if it continues on like this, I may never see it in the cinema, as they'll take it off the programme. Writing still doesn't go as I'd like it to go, due to illness and insane working hours (although I did get one single good idea for "Sea Flower"), neither of which is supportive for creative work. Gah, I'm just miserable. :((
Decided to give "Elementary" another try, though. Last week's episode was hideously boring, and I haven't managed to bring up any sympathy for either of the main characters. They are still deathly dull, and there is zero chemistry between them. And no, I'm not speaking about UST, which, frankly, is boring, too. I'm speaking of any believable reason why I should care for either of them: tattooed!Holmes with his wooden face or wilted!female!Watson with her glassy eyes.
Last time they tried to make me bellieve that Watson used to have a relationship with a pretty boy half her age, who was still pining after her. Oh, please! Age difference aside - cos I'd be the first to say that women also have the right to make a bloody fool of themselves, believing that a much younger partner would love them for their wonderful personality alone - why would he be pining after a dead woman? Because that's what Lucy Liu's Watson very obviously is: a zombie.
Okay, I'm probably biased (probably? hah!), but how could one even mention such wooden characters in the same breath as the wonderful chemistry between Benedict Cumberbatch's Sherlock and Martin Freeman's John? I went into Sherlock with a tabula rasa: never seen either of the actors before, and was very suspicious about the whole modernization thing. I was converted about twenty minutes into watching my first episode - which happened to be the unaired pilot. Things only got better from there.
I've re-watched "Sherlock" uncounted times since then. Yes, it does have its week points. *cough*main-plot-of-ep-02*cough*. What keeps me watching it again and again are the main characters/lead actors. They can lead entire communications via frowns and quirky eyebrows. Not that the dialogue weren't fantastic, mind you, but they don't really need it, not always. And then the third party of the triangle: Mycroft. I'm mutating into a devout Mycroft fan, which is weird, because he's the antithesis of practically everything I like in a guy. But I can't help it.
I hope we'll get to see more of the supporting characters in Series 3. Mrs Hudson deserves more screen time. So does Lestrade. And I'd like to see some character development with Sally Donovan. I like Sally, despite everything. I'd like her to break up with that stupid Anderson and find a guy who'd deserve her. Oh, oh, and I'd like to see Mike Stamford again! And Anthea! And Molly! Even Sebastian Wilkes!
Okay, shutting up now. But you see my point. The only character I didn't particularly like was Moriarty. Not because he was evil - every story needs a villain. I didn't like him because of the insanity. Yes, I know all the reasons. I still didn't like him. Sorry.
In that spirit, I'm gonna watch "Elementary" tonight again. Until we get some more "Sherlock", there's joy in mocking the stupid. It's funny, really, seeing as how many gushing reviews it gets all over the Net. It's like fanfiction, I guess: crap is always very popular. So I'll watch Mr. Muscle-bound Tattoo and the Zombie Woman and will have my personal little snark feast. Since GAFF is gone (and good riddance, honestly).
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2013-01-24 08:48 pm (UTC)I haven't seen Elementary yet - although the pilot is supposed to be on free tv here soon, so I'll be able to see what I think. The trailers looked okay (but no more than that)
(and I do mean to reply to the email about the Hobbit film - I am just failing to keep up with emails atm, and keep ending up dealing with newer ones first)
(no subject)
Date: 2013-01-25 04:27 pm (UTC)I'll be interested what you think about "Elementary". I find it mediocre, but I could deal with it if they wouldn't try to make me believe it has anything to do with Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson. And if they wouldn't shamelessly copy things from "Sherlock". Like the lead actor looping his scarf the same way around his neck as Benedict Cumberbatch wears his. That ha snothing to do with the same source, IMO.
(no subject)
Date: 2013-01-31 06:30 pm (UTC)Overall, it seems to have some potential, but not enough that I would rush (or pay money) to see more of it sooner.
(I'm slightly disappointed - I want there to be new shows that I want to watch; although I've started watching Terra Nova which is interesting and strange)
(no subject)
Date: 2013-02-01 04:59 pm (UTC)I find their Watson boring, too. I mean, a female Watson could have been intriguing, in theory, but watching Lucy Liu's wooden act and how she tries to ensnare a much younger guy each week is pathetic. So is her costume; she's supposed to play a mature woman and wears the same things as my teenage students. At least my girls have the excuse to be young and stupid. What's the costume designer's?
(no subject)
Date: 2013-02-02 01:03 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2013-01-24 09:10 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2013-01-25 04:34 pm (UTC)And I don't understand why they intend to have Holmes lurk around the flat shirtless all the time. Am I supposed to be turned on by his hairy chest and his manly tattoos? Oh, please. Gratutious nudity, be it done by men or by women, is boring.
OTOH, that hilarious scene with Sherlock in Buckingham Palace, wearing only a bedsheet, had a very important aspect: it showed us the complicated relationship between Sherlock and Mycroft. Mycroft, almost parental ("Sherlock Holmes, put yoru trousers on!" *g*) nd Sherlock behaving like a petulant five-year-old, especially when Mycroft calls his bluff and threatens to let him walk out stark naked (after which Sherlock gets dressed within two minutes) was a thing of beauty.
(no subject)
Date: 2013-01-25 09:25 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2013-01-25 04:34 pm (UTC)