Log in



No, nothing as fancy as that new movie or whatever... just re-watching some of the old Mystery Theater episodes. I love Jeremy Bretts' Sherlock!! 

"Look, a pheasant!"

Watson's great, too. Both actors who play him. Gyaah, I've been looking forward to this for a long while! <3
Still re-scanning the FF7 doujinshi "SOLDIER" and the Xenogears doujinshi "The Birth", heheh! 


My favorite rendition of Sherlock Homles is the 1980's one. I thought it was incredibly accurate, and although the earlier one was well-done as well, the incredible attention to camera angles and scene design was absolutely brilliant in the one starring Jeremy Brett! I honestly don't even think the movie can live up to it... I mean, I haven't seen it, and I bet it has fantastic special effects... but there were scenes in The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes series that had such incredibly minute symbolic detail, that I don't think they would even expect most of their audience to pick up on.
Woohoo! I'm glad to meet somebody else who appreciates Jeremy Bretts' Sherlock as much as I do! XD

I tried to watch the earlier ones as well (the black and white ones) but after seeing Brett's performance, I simply wasn't as impressed by the older Sherlock's acting... Brett's is so... so eccentric! It's perfect! He's totally weird, just like Sherlock should be. His figure fits the role, too, tall and lanky.

Yeah, I don't think we can go into the new Sherlock movie expecting another Brett... but I think the new movie may be enjoyable in a sort of actiony, dumb comedy vein. A more modern, silly Sherlock. I'm looking forward to seeing it, one of these days. :3

I agree--modern day visual effects often fall so short of their more archaic ancestors. CGI often comes off as such a cheap gimmick... older movies where you can think for sure "they really had to do that, somehow" are much more impressive.

I actually noticed a couple things in the Sherlock episode last night that I'm not sure I picked up on the first time... stuff that seems terribly obvious now, but is rather easy to dismiss while watching. So I can see what you mean by things that "they wouldn't even expect most of their audience to pick up on."
I agree. I didn't like the black and white version so much. It wasn't bad. It was accurate to the story, but I enjoy the 1980's version better. Brett's acting is wonderful, and I think his appearance fits the role too! Although I might have just taken his appearance and applied it to my personal image of Holmes now :] haha

But, like I said, my very favorite aspect of the 1980s Sherlock Holmes is the directing, adaptation of script, and camera angles... because, like you've noticed as well, there are so many elements that seem to reach out to you on a subconscious level- that the directors consciously considered when setting up the actors in relation to their set and the cameras. It's absurd sometimes, but when I notice these things, I can't help but appreciate the depth of consideration that was put into making this series.

Like, there's an episode where Holmes and Watson are investigating an item that's gone missing (haha, sorry for the vagueness, but the actual investigation isn't important to my point). While doing so, there was a maid-woman in the background, always lit dimly and sulking, as the main characters tried to uncover the truth. At one point, she was standing in the background, blurred as to shift the focus to the main personae in the foreground. She was seemingly not important at all, except as part of the scenery. The shot, however, was set up so that Holmes and his client (or maybe it was Holmes and Watson) were framing the scene. In their discussion, Holmes lifts his magnifying glass from his specific investigation, and speaks to the other person in the scene, but the positioning of all the characters, camera, and background, made it so the woman in the background ended up in the magnifying glass as they were talking- signifying that she should be the one under investigation, although neither Holmes or the audience knew it yet. This kind of very minute, almost not noticeable, but highly symbolic detail is just amazing to me... I can't imagine the amount of thought that would be required to have these little tiny details in every episode.

So special effects are cool, sure... but I think it's really refreshing to know that the directors aren't assuming that their audience needs explosions and over-the-top fight scenes in order to be stimulated (although explosions and over-the-top fight scenes are cool). And really, I think the intellectual stimulation from the 1980's version, and the positioning of the audience to pay attention to such details, really is in the spirit of Sherlock Holmes. I think it really adds to the entire effect of the story!


Wow! That's really cool... (<--seems a lame response after you wrote all that, but those were my initial thoughts, lol!)

I'll have to keep my eye out for the scene with the maid and the magnifying glass! <3

I actually have a sort of aversion to analyzing things like that, because we did it very rigorously in an English class of mine, so I came to associate it with ridiculous essays... which is unfortunate, because it can lead to some interesting things, like what you've just pointed out.

I was going to say something like "I bet that fine attention to detail in scripting and stuff comes from working on the stage", but I suppose that doesn't explain why the black and white one would lack it.

(I know I've definitely modified the way I imagine Holmes to be a lot more--perhaps totally--Bretts-ish!) XD