“I did films with Wanda Ventham, [Benedict’s] mother, and we lived in the same area, in Kensington. So I’d be out with my pram and Wanda and I would be talking and there was poor little Benedict, who I suppose was about four, standing there while we were gossiping in the high street for hours!” -Una Stubbs on Radio Times
“I did films with Wanda Ventham, [Benedict’s] mother, and we lived in the same area, in Kensington. So I’d be out with my pram and Wanda and I would be talking and there was poor little Benedict, who I suppose was about four, standing there while we were gossiping in the high street for hours!” -Una Stubbs on Radio Times
Okay. I'm logging off tumblr now.
^ i can't believe he already had those wonderful cheekbones at such a young age
and wow, una stubbs already knew his mother? O: no wonder they have such a connection on the show
I'm not a literary scholar, but I don't think that personality and characters are the key features of a story. Rather, it's the plot twists, the logistics and the moral dilemmas that make a book interesting to read. Even in a highly emotional story like Wuthering heights or Romeo and Juliet, the puzzles and implications about what's right and wrong and best for the characters that keep us reading. Even the inferences that can be made from writing style or camera angles lead us to question "what does this mean?".
But characterisation comes in when characters are forced to react to a situation. The Shining is a great example - in the book Jack is forced to deal with the domestic abuse he's inflicted on his family by all the crazy stuff that is happening in the hotel. In the film ALL the characterisation is taken away and it is nothing more than a series of crazy stuff happening in a hotel, and it's a completely different story as a result.
Lord of the Rings is the opposite situation. In the books Merry & Pippin don't really change at all in the story. They go on an adventure, come back same old and carry on. In the film there's much more emphasis on them going from immature selfish guys to war-torn men, and they're much more interesting because of that.
Characterisation when it works is all the little things between the setpieces, and without them the story is seriously lacking (the literary equivalent of a Hollywood popcorn flick). It keeps the story from becoming 100% exposition, and instils empathy in the audience. Personally, I'm all about the characterisation!
^ i can't believe he already had those wonderful cheekbones at such a young age
and wow, una stubbs already knew his mother? O: no wonder they have such a connection on the show
The British film and TV world in the 60s and 70s was incredibly small. The same people turned up all the time in everything. Although if you look at the way the paths of many of the actors in Sherlock have crossed elsewhere, you could almost say the same now.
If they are going to stick to the spirit of the book, then all the Mycroft making a mistake and betraying little brother thing will be a bluff, because Mycroft is the only one who knows Sherlock is alive and it's he who finances him for the 3 years he's 'dead'. Presumably it's all done to make John believe Sherlock's dead so that Sherlock can go to ground for a while. In the books, he does that to shake off some of Moriarty's henchmen who are still hunting him after the boss's death. Plus the other most well known thing about the Holmes stories after Sherlock's fake death is the fact that he's got a brother even smarter than he is.
He does seem to have genuinely made a mistake and it does contradict how the books and the show has developed him into (a character who is very intelligent/more intelligent than Sherlock in terms of raw deductive power). But I wouldn't have thought that that would really excuse any of his failings. He told Sherlock's life story and that in itself wouldn't have led him to any conclusion about what would happen. Of course, as you said, it could be a big bluff.
That mistake, if a genuine one, would join other small departures including Moriarty not being a 'professor'.
This leads me to believe that the real answer will be a lot more devilishly schemed (after all it is Moffat). Then again I may just be over thinking this.
I still remember the last episode of Doctor Who, which also revolved around how a main character escaped/faked his own death and was written by Moffat.
I still remember the last episode of Doctor Who, which also revolved around how a main character escaped/faked his own death and was written by Moffat.
Although much more obvious what would have happened!
I still remember the last episode of Doctor Who, which also revolved around how a main character escaped/faked his own death and was written by Moffat.
^ tho the doctor who ending was not nearly as good as the sherlock ending; waaaay too many loose ends leading to frustration rather than anticipation x)
He does seem to have genuinely made a mistake and it does contradict how the books and the show has developed him into (a character who very intelligent/more intelligent than Sherlock in terms of raw deductive power). But I wouldn't have thought that that would really excuse any of his failings. He told Sherlock's life story and that in itself wouldn't have led him to any conclusion about what would happen. Of course, as you said, it could be a big bluff.
That mistake, if a genuine one, would join other small departures including Moriarty not being a 'professor'.
I'm putting my money on the bluff theory. But yes, they have changed a few things, not least that Moriarty is in very few of the original stories at all. (Only 2, in fact.) Just to get this onto TSR territory, I've just had a peep at Wikipedia, which claims he was a professor at either Leeds or Durham. Let's watch the endless league table debate take on a new dimension....
First gross animal that sprung to mind I can edit in 'badger' or 'possum' if you would prefer
I think I love badgers even more than raccoons. Possums are also good. I think you'll have to go lower than mammals on the order of species for me to approve. Something slimy. However, I certainly agree with your Moriarty and the lesser beings theory.
John: You're doing The Look again. Sherlock: Well I can't see it can I? That's my face. John: Yes and it's doing a thing, you're doing the 'we both know what's really going on here' face. Sherlock: Well we do- John: No, I don't, which is why I find The Face so annoying.