bbakerb: (Default)
[personal profile] bbakerb
 I would say 'late night' but I am bound to be told that the night is yet young, etc etc.

so here is: everything I can remember about Thursday night, which was the Sherlock screening & Q&A.

- went to the fangirl meetup at the pub next door, met [ profile] flecalicious  (WHO WROTE MY HOLMESTICE STORY) I remember because I saw her name tag, did not get a proper look at [ profile] flecalicious ’s bff’s nametag but talked a lot to her (eta: I want to say her lj name was [ profile] roses_of_anna? but don't really trust my memory there)!), and bitched about Merlin (THAT WAS FUN) (DOUBLE ETA: yes it was [ profile] roses_of_anna  I talked to!)

Drank a Tom Collins, which is gin and lime juice, I like to think I’m getting some vitamin C with my alcohol.

Found [ profile] kate_lear  who is awesome

Met people I vaguely know already! [ profile] strangeumbrella , [ profile] lo0o0ony_lauren  and [ profile] cathamarine !

The episode they showed was The Great Game. I was sort of hoping it would be Study In Pink but ah well

THEN THE QUESTIONS and the answers - here are things that came out of that questioning/discussion:

Gatiss and Moffat say - the key thing about Sherlock is he's happy, Sherlock is content - not manic depressive like House, i.e. The similarities with House are they think quite superficial.

What Cumberbatch and Rathbone both have in common in their portrayals is that they are both magnificent anglo-saxon bastards, UNASHAMED OF IT.

The mouse - Mark Gatiss suddenly went ‘oh look a mouse, there’s a mouse over there’, how darling of him. The whole cinema went quiet thinking ‘where where? I want to see the mouse I have been promised a mouse’

Gatiss said: You get the impression that at some point in his childhood Sherlock weighed up good and evil and chose good because it was more difficult (gatiss did a CHARMING MIME of someone weighing things) - chose good because it’s HARDER. There are more rules. - at least that’s what sherlock told himself.

One or other of them said: you come to the story at exactly the right time because before John Sherlock is insufferable, before Sherlock John is miserable

They were glad to do Study In Scarlet because it hadn’t been done much before - twice, including once in Russian - and clearly they think it’s great

The riding crop was commented on by every newspaper - but that bit is from the book, said Gatiss - Stamford says Sherlock was beating corpses with a stick to assess bruising after death.

(n.b. the PTSD is from the book too - did not realise until I reread the beginning to look for the corpse beating but John is very clearly NOT OK, mentions wanting quiet and his nerves being shaken)

Moriarty: Moffat said they needed to make him genuinely unpredictable and frightening, said Moriarty was someone who would shoot a baby in the face and expect the mother to laugh. This was pretty much the first question Moffat answered - one of ROBIN MOTHERFUCKING INCE’S



Someone asked something about the relationship between sherlock and john - I forget what - Moffat was all ‘I assume you’re talking about the gay thing,’ and then, ‘if two men move in together in london today, that’s something people just are going to assume. AND THAT’S NICE. That is just what would happen.’

Moffat says: you don’t understand sherlock at all unless you understand that for him sex is thinking. It’s in here (taps head). It’s like someone did a genetic experiment and wired up his libido to his brain.

Was this when he said the line about being well aware of the ‘fervently imagined fantasies’ on the internet? Might have been - and after then said, ‘Stop it Mark,’ and Gatiss said innocently ‘I don’t know what you mean.’

Gatiss said, ‘Ambiguity,’ that’s what was important.

- I genuinely think they are not trying to say ‘oh they are this one thing, they are not this other thing’, I think they are trying to say ‘you cannot even express what this relationship is’.

- Moriarty is irish because a) andrew scott came in and was fucking stupendous, blew them away, and b) Moriarty’s an irish name, and an irish Moriarty had never been done before

Una Stubbs! Robin Ince wants more Una next series. Aunt Sally in Worzel Gummidge is THE EMBODIMENT OF EVIL.

Ince said something about reading things on the internet, Moffat said, ‘oh no it’s a terrible mistake to go onto internet forums,’ to which Mark gently said, ‘Fora, surely?’ which CRACKED ME THE FUCK UP.

Robin Ince, that DROLL MOTHERFUCKER, to Gatiss in response to this: ‘So, what first drew you to the pedant Sherlock Holmes?’

I put my hand up at the end. Robin Ince said, “You, you look like you don’t have a question but BY GOD you’re going to think of one!’ - it was one that I had in fact thought of a LONG LONG time ago, which was - Moffat and Gatiss are very vocal about their favorite versions - Rathbone updated ones, and TPLOSH (TPLOSH!) - are there any that they hadn’t enjoyed, or thought had got it wrong?

And Mark Gatiss got all seriousface and I felt AWFUL like I had insulted something (which obviously I HAD) and he said, ‘I don’t think you should use that pejorative language,’ or maybe he said ‘you shouldn’t be so pejorative’, all adaptations have something to enjoy, then he and Moffat mentioned a couple of MAD sounding ones - and then Gatiss said, ‘but I WILL SAY that the recent - what was it, the one from 2009, with him out of torchwood, that was DREADFUL, that was TERRIBLE, I don’t even know what that was supposed to be.’ to much laughter.


- and re: reading things on internet fora, Moffat said ‘There are stages to fan love. It goes - ‘I love this show so much - I love this show so much I want to be a part of it - I love this show so much, why won’t they let me be a part of it - I hate this show, they’re dreadful, I’m going to say nasty things on the internet’.

- by which he means I hope ‘bitching about the show and insulting the creators’ more than ‘writing fanfic’, I actually think that writing fanfic keeps people sane about shows, it’s an outlet, it’s satisfying, whereas ranting is emphatically NOT satisfying.

Martin Freeman has funny bones. Martin Freeman can just do the funny stuff. Martin Freeman would say sometimes to Gatiss - specifically TGG was mentioned - ‘you don’t need that line, I can just do that with a look’, and I BELIEVE this, because Martin Freeman does the BEST looks.

- Nigel Bruce had that too, said Gatiss, people don’t like him so much now but he and Martin Freeman are similar in that they are both really funny, have funny bones, just can do the funny stuff, don’t need to be told when/how to do it

Someone asked Mark ‘what was it like coming up with FIVE different mysteries in that episode?’ i.e. TGG which we’d just watched, and Moffat laughed and said, THANK YOU, and Gatiss made a sort of thankful sigh and said, ‘people only ever talk about the swimming pool scene, no one ever mentions that I came up with FIVE DIFFERENT MYSTERIES, yes it was hard - writing mysteries is HARD. Even A C D after the first initial flurry gave up on writing mysteries, there are endless stories which are like ‘oh so this wasn’t the greatest test of holmes’ deducting skills but nevertheless was interesting’. (Which is true. There are PLENTY like that) - and then Gatiss said ‘in answer to your question YES IT WAS HARD.’

Moffat said - and a lot of the most famous bits of deduction aren’t anything to do with the case at all. (I thought of the gold watch.)

Someone asked if they’d ever do any of the smaller stories, the missing brooches, etc - Moffat said, Holmes is famous for the hound of the Baskervilles, not for the Copper Beeches - they might do the smaller stories but as part of a bigger one like they'd done with TGG.

- there was some discussion about when/where they’d get stories from - they obviously had said Hound, Adler, Reichenbach - which is no secret really -

- Gatiss said, ‘I collect bad Sherlock Holmes pastiches, they always seem to have Moriarty riding in upon the hound of the Baskervilles’ - lol i.e. There’s a danger in thinking you have to do all the exciting bits at once

There’s the problem that there aren’t really any stories that could sustain a programme for ninety minutes apart from HOTB, so they do the pick’n’mix thing that the Rathbone films do - take bits of lots of stories

That’s one thing they really like about the Rathbone films - irreverence to canon. The writers take the favorite bits and smush them together, like in House Of Death they take the five orange pips and basically just use the concept of the pips.

They like the Rathbone/Bruce relationship. They think Cumberbatch and Freeman have rapport like that, that it just WORKED when Freeman came in, the way that in ASIP Holmes is insufferable and John is miserable, when cumber-freeman happened it was like ‘we are at this story at the right moment’

Rathbone films: the updated ones. Moffat and Gatiss did a little dance of glee (well, said gatiss, we didn’t LITERALLY dance) when they found out that for both of them their favorites were the Rathbone series and SPECIFICALLY the updated ones, which they said was a heretical opinion. But they thought these ones were the most FUN, and truest to the spirit of the originals (the galumphing disregard for common sense, I think they mean), they were the most FUN versions

- like in HOTB, said Moffat, Holmes is absent for half of it because A C D KNOWS that if Holmes shows up it will be over too soon. It’s ridiculously simple, just go around Dartmoor asking who’s got a dog, A C D KNOWS the story makes no sense and that’s why Holmes has to be absent

- Moffat said something interesting - which is that actually ultimately the mysteries are not THAT important.

- and then Moffat said it was really about making HERO MOMENTS. (And this I suppose applies equally to say the deduction of the phone as of any actual 'heroic' moment, Moffat I think meant moments that just AWE you)

He pointed out that in ASIP Sherlock solves the crime because the murderer COMES TO HIS HOUSE, CLIMBS UP TO HIS FLAT, and OFFERS HIM A LIFT. He said that when writing that episode he’d got to that point in the screenplay, and realized that he could either have Sherlock do some clever deducing with maps and so on, or put him in terrible jeopardy. And A C D would without a doubt have put Holmes in terrible jeopardy, so THAT’S WHAT MOFFAT DID. Terrible jeopardy > coherent mysteries, basically, and that’s how it is in the stories.

The humanizing journey of Sherlock. (I also like to think of it as ‘two men on their journey towards broccoli.’ At the start, they do not have broccoli! John ignores Sherlock’s texts a couple of times! They can’t even keep the fridge full of milk! By the end, they are communicating with TORTURED GAZES under the eyes of their mortal enemy, seriously, the last few seconds of TGG are two men who have finally achieved broccoli.)

but yeah, the humanising journey of sherlock, sherlock getting to the point where moriarty can say 'that's not quite true' and both sherlock and us know he's right

Is there any co-writing, could there be? These were two different questions but the answer was in both cases - if ever Moffat and Gatiss sat down in a room together they’d just chat. It would be lovely but no writing would get done.

Could there in the future be any co writing? Mark (who every time someone semi-suggested something would say ‘ah yes, in series 2!’, ‘series 4’, ‘series 5’) - he said brightly, ‘series 8! We’ll do the Giant Rat of Sumatra together.’ (Oh Giant Rat of Sumatra, you are close to my heart)

Will there be any changes in s2 due to Martin Freeman being in The Hobbit? ‘Yes,’ said Gatiss, ‘Series 2 is set in New Zealand, and John Watson takes a very strange turn, he takes off his shoes, and - ’ lol.

Someone asked how to break onto the screenwriting scene. Moffat said, ‘I personally have stopped all training programmes. We’re full up. One of us has to die first.’ and then, ‘I never know what to say to this question. seriously the best way is to write something so good that someone HAS to put it on.’

The wallpaper. Everyone comments on the wallpaper in 221b. It’s a trademark of the director, Paul McGuigan, nice wallpaper (said Gatiss); he always makes sure to have nice wallpaper in his films.

The original pilot looks like pretty thin stuff now, said Gatiss, but when we first saw it we thought it looked incredible .

Is there anything you regret losing from the pilot? Dialogue in the restaurant etc? - Moffat looked very serious and said, ‘No, not really, that scene was too long, it needed to be cut,’

Gatiss said, ‘There was one line I thought was brilliant (little love moment between Moffat and Gatiss there!) - where Sherlock says ‘Everything else is just transport’.’

So Gatiss loved that line! In a manner commensurate with the status that line has taken on in fandom i.e. Quite a bit.

The design of the flat they realized didn’t really work - the wallpaper was all blood red, there was a weird three inch step in the middle of the floor that people kept tripping over, so they just GOT RID OF IT - there was a subplotthing where Mrs Hudson actually ran Speedy’s Snacks, and there was a kind of industrial design thing going on in the 221b kitchen that was supposed to carry through from that, like it had originally been part of the cafe kitchen - this was supposed to make it look more like a lab but didn’t really.

Paul McGuigan came up with the texts onscreen for TGG because he didn’t like the idea of having endless shots of phones, and there’s a lot of texts in TGG. Moffat at that point - when they were LITERALLY FILMING TGG - was so behind that he hadn’t actually written ASIP yet and so was able to work in more of that text-on-screen thing as he wrote it. Moffat and Gatiss referred to Paul McGuigan multiple times as a genius.

(i.e. This might be why ASIP is the best episode (alas Gatiss it just IS) - it not only got a serious rewrite, but got a serious rewrite after the writer was able to see what the series would look like - i.e after seeing the pilot, and after knowing a good deal about what what the final episode would look like.)

Mark Gatiss wasn’t credited at the end of ASIP because they knew that, if he was, it would get out that he was playing Mycroft. They wanted to play on everyone's assumptions that he'd be playing Moriarty. Moffat said, ‘The newspapers would just have printed it. They just would. And you can’t ask them not to because they do it anyway.’ The lesson of caginess learned from Doctor Who I feel.

The question of Doctor/Sherlock comparisons. The Doctor is kind and warm - Sherlock is cold and mean i.e. They aren’t all that similar. And the coat was because you need to give a character like that a hero coat, need to be able to recognize him anywhere, recognize his silhouette - ‘and they’ve now sold I think a MILLION -’ said Gatiss. lol.

- though there was some instruction in the very early days of the Doctor to Sydney Newman to make the Doctor more like Sherlock Holmes, so Holmes is certainly in the DNA of the Doctor

Watson and Stamford meet at the Criterion Bar in ASIS - and they were able to actually film there in the original pilot! But couldn’t afford to go back when they reshot it, hence it became Criterion Coffee, much cheaper.

Someone asked if Moffat had felt anxious at all over being responsible for both Doctor Who and Sherlock Holmes in the same year - Moffat said, yes, I thought oh god, if it all goes wrong, all I have to do is shoot Daniel Craig in the head and delete the back catalogue of the Beatles and I’ve destroyed the entirety of British culture.

ETA because [ profile] strangeumbrella  has reminded me: and THEN he said 'but of course now I feel incredibly smug'. And everyone applauded this FOR SOME REASON. And Moffat said, 'you wouldn't get this kind of applause in NORTH London, they'd all be going 'ah yes but actually we're a bit more smug than you.'

Gatiss when talking about TPLOSH - I forget what the context was but he said there's a lost sequence from that film, The Case Of The Upside-Down Room. Holmes is called in to investigate a room where everything is upside down; it turns out that Watson has organised it to try and entertain Holmes and cheer him up with a problem. Holmes sees through it straightaway (I think that's what Gatiss said.)

also Gatiss likes The Yellow Face, which is a story where Holmes gets it totally and completely wrong. Also: he always liked that Holmes was the only detective who, when someone came in and said 'I need you to rescue the Crown Jewels, here is a MILLION POUNDS!', would say, 'well yes but the man next door has started eating white toast instead of brown, I'm afraid I can't attend to your case just now'  (in the Rathbone-Bruce film Adventures Of Sherlock Holmes you have a scene exactly like that, iirc - someone comes to Sherlock and says 'MORIARTY IS GOING TO STEAL A PRICELESS EMERALD!' and Holmes says, 'But this young lady has just received a note asking her not to go to a garden party, so I'm afraid I'm busy.')

Moffat wrt fanfic is very much ‘if you want to think - if you want to write - that sort of stuff on the internet that’s fine - THAT’S FINE - but the reality is - Sherlock is not interested in sex at all, at all (etc.)’



well anyway


- Moffat said that you could tell when it was a good and thorough and serious adaptation, that you could just TELL when the creators loved the original and cared about it - 'I don't know anything about Spiderman, I've never read the comics, but when you see the films you just know they're made by people who really care about it.' So the hardcore Holmes fans are easily won over, because they can feel the love and thought that's gone into this adaptation, as well as being excited that it's Holmes full stop.

- TPLOSH was liberating for them when they were thinking about Mycroft, because Billy Wilder & his cowriter made Mycroft into 'a cold government BASTARD.' (for full effect say 'bastard' in a Scottish accent. in fact imagine all Moffat's line in Scottish accent, it's much better.) Mycroft shows up in The Greek Interpreter and is fat and doesn't get much more development after that, so th e TPLOSH interpretation of Mycroft was a massive help.

- there was some conversation that Gatiss had had with Christopher Lee (who was TPLOSH-Mycroft) where Lee had told him 'never be photographed in your own home. it is an invitation to BURGLARY.'

- Gatiss and Moffat had talked about what made Sherlock Holmes the theoretical person special in the modern day, since forensics were now used everywhere. That ACD in Sherlock Holmes invented the modern idea of forensics (and this is sort of true, the man who sometimes is called the father of modern forensics, Bernard Spilsbury, was influenced by Holmes, and frequently compared to him in the press) - and obviously in this universe that can't have happened - so what distinguishes Sherlock today is that he's still the cleverest man in London (did he say in London? he said 'in', at least), he can make the giant leaps and connect things together and make it make sense.

- feel perhaps I should provide a link to the Worzel Gummidge wikipedia page in case people are confused about that.

- I was terrified of Worzel Gummidge when I was little, literally thought he was terrifying

- oh yes, and the hardest decision they made, but one that seems in retrospect ridiculously obvious, was that the characters had to be Sherlock and John rather than Holmes and Watson, they had to call each other by their first names because that's what people DO </Moriarty>. And then they kept on reading things in the papers which said 'Sherlock is played by Benedict Cumberbatch and Dr. Watson by Martin Freeman', i.e. it was weirdly more difficult for people to accept 'John' than 'Sherlock', probably because it's a much more normal name.

- and re: the Asylum Holmes: 'They have a MAN playing Holmes - not an actor, JUST A MAN.' 

I said to [ profile] strangeumbrella  on the way out ‘would it be really really inappropriate to ask Mark Gatiss to sign a copy of the Christian Fall book?’


Me: no you don’t understand, I mean get him to sign it as Christian Fall!

Alas no that is still ridiculously inappropriate. (Please if you are reading this: NEVER DO THAT.)

And then we had a little rave about Raffles. Strangeumbrella thinks Mark Gatiss needs to play Raffles, is perfect for the part. Wanted to ask him if he’d ever read the stories, because she thinks he clearly has.

(I have added ‘mark-gatiss-should-play-raffles’ to my lj interests.)

Also: talked about how incredibly fucked up Raffles, and his relationship with Bunny, are. ‘There’s one story where Raffles is like ‘imagine walking into the club, knowing you’d just killed someone, wouldn’t it be great’, [ profile] strangeumbrella  said, ‘and you’re like no, Raffles! That is not ok!'

Oh, the affection I felt during the Derren Brown lovefest last night. I would like to inform you that the autocorrect in Pages changes ‘lovefest’ to ‘loveliest’.

Basically there is nothing better than Derren Brown in a bizarrely normal checked shirt with a parakeet on his shoulder showing you his collection of stuffed and pickled animals. NOTHING.

(And. Iain Sharkey, his co-writer, who he met doing The Seance - he was Spirit Cabinet Guy! - I remember thinking ‘wow that is some serious love connection there!’ in that moment when Derren lets him out of the spirit cabinet - I genuinely considered shipping them on the basis of the three seconds where Spirit Cabinet Guy (as then we knew him) grabbed Derren’s hand, pressed it to his heart, and said ‘Feel that!’ with a massive grin on his face. This shipping was pretty brief - I just thought ‘my goodness that guy looks madly into Derren there.’ and rewound it and watched it again - but I was ridiculously pleased that this impression wasn’t false. The guy really had thought, ‘This is amazing, I need to know how this is done, I have to be involved in this!’ and Derren and he ended up working together and becoming great friends. AND THAT IS ADORABLE

Derren said that the ‘explanation’ episode of the lottery-guessing special made him cringe. And I’m glad he said this, because I think it’s the one Derren Brown show where I’ve literally thought ‘well what is the point of this, Derren, why am I watching this’.

so those are some things aren't they.

Date: 2011-01-10 01:24 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
This post is AWESOME and YES Mark Gatiss should play Raffles. (GUH I love Yellow Face!! Hooray Gatiss!)

I like imagining that Moffat is so adamantly against the idea of Sherlock being interested in sex, but meanwhile Mark Gatiss is just furiously adding to a pile of gay jokes daily.

Date: 2011-01-10 01:46 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
I basically think that Moffat is very sure that Sherlock is asexual and John is straight, and Gatiss is into... well, like he says, the *ambiguity*



(strangeumbrella said she had been picturing Gatiss as Raffles when reading the stories, so much so that she'd been picturing Raffles with a moustache. Until she came to a bit that was like 'Raffles does not have a moustache'. There, another anecdote!)

Date: 2011-01-10 02:35 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
Until she came to a bit that was like 'Raffles does not have a moustache'
AND THEN I DELETED THAT FROM MY CANON. Because he IS Gatiss and there is nothing I can do about it. I still haven't dream-cast Bunny in my head, I don't know who I want, hmmmmm. I need someone wide-eyed etc. Anyway going to do a proper comment on this whole post in a minute, hang on

Date: 2011-01-10 02:37 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
(in fact I was going to say: I automatically cast Reece Shearsmith opposite Gatiss in my head, generally, and I thought about it and was like "that would probably be brilliant but maybe I need someone a bit more useless-looking for Bunny" but THEN AGAIN I have just realised this icon could be a bit Raffles and Bunnyesque, HMMMMM)

Date: 2011-01-10 08:43 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
ha you deleted it? Gatiss has taken over Raffles SO COMPLETELY in your mind that Hornung's painstakingly imagined absence of moustache means nothing to you??

well I do think that having gatiss play Raffles WITHOUT a moustache would look a bit odd.

also: your icon all of a sudden looks INDEED very raffles-and-bunnyish, good lord

Date: 2011-01-10 03:24 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
Is Moffat still writing episodes? Moffat is my writing god after all

Also that is ADORABLE! Do you guys have anyone in mind for Bunny? Because I'm having trouble not just imagining the guy that plays Watson in TPLOSH in his perpetual incredulity and overflowing FEELINGS but I think I'd like at least one non-Holmes actor to use as a reference point haha

Date: 2011-01-10 08:51 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
yes, I think the writing arrangement is basically the same, Moffat does one, Gatiss does one, and then I assume some random dude who we're all going to bitch about does the third. I hope Paul McGuigan's back as director, crap, someone should have asked that to make sure.

I don't have anyone particular in mind for Bunny, [ profile] strangeumbrella mentioned Reece Shearsmith above - Bunny I think is almost harder to cast actually

Date: 2011-01-10 03:15 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
GREATLY ENJOYED THIS POST. When [ profile] lo0o0ony_lauren and I got back we made a list of all the things we could remember, but this one had some bits I had forgotten!

- Mark Gatiss suddenly went ‘oh look a mouse, there’s a mouse over there’
hahaha this I do remember, did you see the mouse? We saw the mouse! He hadn't just gone mental.

- the thing about Sherlock choosing to be good because it's harder: this is probably the thing that I think most broke Loz and I of the evening, in terms of how perfect an observation it is and how interesting it is to look at all his actions from that point of view and, and basically I would have a lot to say about this if it wasn't already 2.40am and I should go to sleep. Just. YES PLEASE.

- definitely going to try and start using 'droll motherfucker'

- Robin Ince said, “You, you look like you don’t have a question but BY GOD you’re going to think of one!"
HA I'd forgotten that, you stepped in to save the day with the final question

- And Mark Gatiss got all seriousface and I felt AWFUL like I had insulted something (which obviously I HAD) and he said, ‘I don’t think you should use that pejorative language,’ or maybe he said ‘you shouldn’t be so pejorative’, all adaptations have something to enjoy
Also I don't think he was saying you had said a bad thing! Just that they didn't like to be negative about any Sherlock Holmes adaptations, perhaps because it is a thing they want to be joyful about or because it would be sort of unprofessional for them to do so etc etc. Which obvs he immediately went back on, that rant was the best thing, and I think my favourite bit was "and they have a man playing Holmes - not an actor, just a man"

- by which he means I’d hope ‘bitching about the show and insulting the creators’ more than ‘writing fanfic’, I actually think that writing fanfic keeps people sane about shows, it’s an outlet, it’s satisfying, whereas ranting is emphatically NOT satisfying.

Absolutely, I think he did mean this. Also I liked that even when he was setting down his fairly clear opinions on Sherlock's sexuality, that he IS asexual and there is no way round it, he kept qualifying it with "although obviously that's what I think" or "of course if you want to interpret it differently" - evidently he has a set way of looking at it (which is probably sensible, to be honest, if you're actually making the show) but I really appreciated that he was aware that he couldn't... be the last word, if that makes sense. And he almost seemed to be saying it in regard to the "outpourings of fantasies" or whatever he'd referred to on the internet - I remember feeling like he was all but saying, "I've written the character like this but if you want to write fanfiction, whatever, no problem." Especially with the blurring of who the character belongs to - of course we're writing about BBC-Sherlock, but to what degree does he meld with ACD-Holmes, and to what degree is Sherlock itself basically legitimised fanfiction? "Holmes and Watson live in 21st century London" is just an AU. They're writing their idea of the characters and we're kind of welcome to do that too.

- Although having said that, I actually very much like the way they summed it up: it's a love story. They seemed to conclude that Sherlock was asexual but not...aromantic? Not sure that's the word I want, but they explicitly said "they love each other", and I don't know to what degree they see that love as purely platonic, although then you get into 'what is the difference between platonic love and romantic love without sex'. Anyway my point is, they evidently don't see them having a sexual relationship (although, Gatiss: "series one hundred and four!") but having pretty much every other important emotional bond you would attach to a 'relationship'? Love included. And actually, when I think it through, in terms of how I view the actual canon of this show, I agree with that. I think Sherlock in this incarnation probably is asexual but I do think he and John could be in love.

- But having said THAT, that doesn't mean that I don't want to read and write things where they do have sex

hilariously this comment is TOO LONG TO BE A COMMENT, hang on

Date: 2011-01-10 03:15 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
- all I have to do is shoot Daniel Craig in the head and delete the back catalogue of the Beatles and I’ve destroyed the entirety of British culture
1) rofl I remembered this but I'd forgotten the Beatles bit; in fact I think he just said "delete the Beatles", like delete the actual people, because I was like wtf moffat how is that possible, even if he presumably meant it as in 'delete their music', and 2) my favourite bit of this was the follow-up of "But now of course I'm incredibly smug" which for some reason WE ALL APPLAUDED. "You wouldn't get that applause in north London, they'd all be going, 'ah yes, but we're actually a bit more smug than you'."

Anyway there are some thoughts about things! Also regarding Raffles and his whole 'wouldn't it be great to murder someone and then go to the club and no-one would know' thing (answer: NO), I have remembered what it reminded me of! It was bothering me that I couldn't remember, and it is, appropriately, Rope, which I seem to remember we all discussed in the queue for the toilet. All their business about the perfect crime, how brilliant it would be to serve dinner to a family on top of the chest containing their dead son and ~nobody would know~ - yeah that is basically what Raffles came out with in that story.

Also I finished the book! Can't really deal with anything, I remember just having to have a little sit and a think afterwards because I didn't know what to do. Pretty hilarious that the entire last story is just Bunny going I'M SO ANGRY RAFFLES IS SPENDING TIME WITH A WOMAN, and then does Raffles steal the pearl while naked?? Am I literally making that up? Bunny's like "he crawled through the vent without a stitch of clothing on him" or whatever and I was like, whoa, whoa, back up there, dude. CLIMBING NAKED OVER A DRUGGED MAN. okay then. I thought the ending, whether consciously or not, summed up their relationship pretty perfectly - where Raffles shouts at Bunny to hold the guy who's trying to stop him escaping, and then there's that line about how he did it without even thinking about what the instruction was, just because it was Raffles telling him. Yep that is everything about them right there. god Raffles is just such a shit to him ALL THE TIME and it makes me a weird combination of ANGRY and INTRIGUED and DEEPLY INVESTED and SEXUALLY CONFUSED idk, actually I think actually what I have described there is Bunny.

oh my god it is so late and I need to sleep, all I have time to say about Derren is that he looked SO GOOD in that checked shirt, like I mean I am such a fan of a suit and especially on him, the impact the shirt had on me was quite a surprise.

Date: 2011-01-10 03:17 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
"actually I think actually" yep definitely time for bed then

Date: 2011-01-11 03:24 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]




well some of it might be

- I enjoyed the mouse WAY TOO MUCH

- I think 'chose good because it's HARDER' augh I can't actually say anything intelligent about this? actually can't

- your comment(s) sparked off a WHOLE OTHER TRAIN OF MEMORY in my head, have added in a bunch more stuff that you reminded me of

- am glad you didn't think Mark Gatiss was DISAPPROVING OF ME, I suppose I was thinking 'there must be some interpretation they are actively reacting AGAINST', and thought it might be something specific, idk, there were a couple of fairly recent ones, one with Rupert Everett which was all SEX CRIME and DRUG INJECTING (am I making this up, I worry that I am) and so yeah it would be unprofessional of them to start bitching



have added it in. it is TRUE, I googled asylum holmes and the man playing holmes IS JUST A MAN, he has no other credits, NOT EVEN TORCHWOOD and Holmes has a brother called 'Thorpe'? sorry what is 'mycroft' still in copyright or something

- I really like moffat's attitude, actually, I think the fact that it's Doctor Who and Sherlock Holmes he's involved with that makes his attitude like it is i.e. these are things that have been around forever, been reinterpreted 90000000 times, so who can ever say one interpretation or other is 'definitive' - like, I heart the Granada series, but I can't really get behind everyone saying it's the definitive adaptation, and I concede this might be to do with not having seen all that much of it - but it's the most comprehensive interpretion, this doesn't mean it's the only one that counts, it's still a particular (very very good, proper and good and serious) slant on the original stories

- icr if he said it in regards to Sherlock or Who - he said the great thing about doing it was 'it's our turn now.' It applies to both, the idea that actually someone else will come along in five or ten or twenty years and do a totally different and totally awesome version

having said THAT, that doesn't mean that I don't want to read and write things where they do have sex

WELL SAID that whole bit

there was a paragraph I cut from the write-up because it wasn't really relevant, I just went on - slightly in response to a couple of posts I'd seen that were critical of the repeated gay thing, as in 'I don't like how keen Gatiss and Moffat are to assure us they're NOT GAY, to nail down their relationship' - I went on about how I thought they were trying to OPEN IT THE FUCK UP - most people who watch the show aren't going to be slashing from the words 'how's your blog going'. I think the suggestions that they're on a date etc etc - it's like, you can't tell the audience that without the audience absorbing it into their idea of what the john/sherlock relationship is. The fact that it's repeatedly denied - for one thing, if it wasn't denied we'd be into BROMANCE territory which is unambiguously 'I love you man and we both know it, enough to joke about it in an easy open way'; for another, John is not exactly a happy or friendly person, esp at the start of the show; also it actually prevents you being sure of where they stand with each other - like denying something means it has to be on the continuum to begin with. also I am very keen on the line 'Something new' in TGG, because it doesn't apply to just Moriarty, you can go crazy and apply it to Sherlock or Sherlock-and-John and probably all sorts of other things ok that's enough


a weird combination of ANGRY and INTRIGUED and DEEPLY INVESTED and SEXUALLY CONFUSED idk, actually I think actually what I have described there is Bunny

ok what this doesn't fit

Date: 2011-01-11 03:24 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
raffles why are you such a dick, Bunny why don't you just heavily fictionalise all these stories and publish them so you have an independent income and don't have to rely on cricketing bastards to look after you

HAVE YOU HAD FURTHER BUNNY CASTING THOUGHTS if so I would like to hear them, am happy to go with Reece Shearsmith though on the basis of Gatiss and Shearsmith actually sometimes being onscreen together

OH AND DERREN, ok I am going to say something SUPER WEIRD - I read a star trek slashfic once which was ALL ABOUT Kirk thinking how strange-alien-weird Spock looked SUPER SEXY AND EXOTIC in normal Earth clothes, I think there is some of that going on whenever you see Derren out of a suit and in everyday clothing

Date: 2011-01-12 01:12 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
- Chose good because it's harder: I'm going to attempt to articulate some thoughts about this I guess because I have an exam tomorrow morning but I haven't been adapting my sleeping patterns so I am ENTIRELY NOT TIRED. Anyway, I think part of what I like about this is that it explains why Sherlock has decided to be 'good' - although as they pointed out, we can sort of see that he isn't, or at least not unambiguously so, cf Lestrade's "great man and one day he may even be a good one" etc. And it's not that he's a bad person either - when Donovan says she thinks he's going to start killing people, that sort of seems too far the other way - I just see him as relatively amoral. Like the idea of right and wrong is somehow below him? (WAIT I just remembered another excellent Moffat soundbite I had completely forgotten: that the Doctor is a (sort of) god who wants to be a human, and Holmes is a human who wants to be a god.)

So anyway, yes, I feel like good and bad doesn't necessarily concern him, not hugely, although of course he's aware of them, but like - it's like in whatever story it is where the client is killed, and Holmes is upset because it's an insult to his pride. (Five Orange Pips possibly?) Not because it's sad a man has died or because it's bad that some people have killed him. And that 'uncaring' aspect of him, I think, was translated very well into Sherlock - that fucking excellent "don't make people into heroes, John" scene - along with the idea that he doesn't really...dislike criminals? If anything, he admires them, and he uncovers them and stops them because it is such an interesting game. What the hell was my point, oh yes, obvs this isn't an unchallenged facet of Holmes's/Sherlock's personality (obvs we know he cares about Watson, and occasionally in the books doesn't he sometimes unexpectedly come out with stuff about justice and criminals actually being bad etc). But if you decide to run with that - if you take him as somewhat detached from good and bad - you might wonder why he decided to be on the side of good, as it were, because you'd imagine there might be a lot more fun and danger and craft in being a master criminal. I think I'd vaguely thought about this before but not much. But the idea that the rules of being good make it more of a challenge is, I think, the PERFECT explanation, and leaves Sherlock free to be amoral within that.

- Everything you say about the mentioning and apparent dismissing of them being a couple: I agree! Re the first episode, I saw people criticising their repeated denials too - but I don't think that in any way inhibits the development of their relationship or restricts their sexuality etc. If this was a different story, if it was about two men who canonically eventually have an unambiguous gay relationship, they would still deny they were a couple in the same places! Because they aren't, of course they aren't, they've literally only just met. Everything they say in ASIS defines their relationship at that point in time - at that incredibly early stage - but not for the rest of the time they know each other. I think in a way, it's harder to see that because just about EVERYBODY watching knows that they are the great duo, that they will go on to know each other for ages and have adventures etc, so we expect them to act in the same way on the occasion of their first meeting as on occasions far into their future. So basically: I agree that Moffat and Gatiss haven't in any way 'pinned down' them or their relationship in the things they have made them say.

- so what distinguishes Sherlock today is that he's still the cleverest man in London (did he say in London? he said 'in', at least)
Actually I remember this, I remember he said "the cleverest man in the room" because it made me think of the Doctor again, wasn't that a bit of a theme in Midnight, can't remember if it was said in those words but nonetheless.

Date: 2011-01-12 01:13 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
- re person below saying "I am still getting over the heartbreak of Benedict Cumberbatch not being Raffles" - admit I ENTIRELY see what they mean on this. I think the thing is, on my copy the picture on the front is a man with a gingerish moustache, so unconsciously I was like, righto, that's Raffles then. And in the stories he doesn't seem to get described that much - well, actually, he gets described a lot, but usually only in terms of Bunny pretty much telling us he's super attractive and great, and not really a description that would help you pick him out of a line-up. So I just went along with ginger-moustache-man in my head (which at some point became Gatiss), hence difficulties at the "I don't have a moustache!" revelation. But anyway, what was I saying, oh yes just that in the bit in The Ides of March about him having black tumbled hair or whatever - one of the few helpful descriptions - I, too, was like, okay, that's Cumberbatch! But then apparently I forgot about that and went back to moustache guy

No further news on Bunny, I'll keep you posted

Date: 2011-01-14 01:24 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
TOO MANY COMMENTS but gonna leave another one. Anyway this was just a thought, I don't really know what is going on with your life and evenings in general but, if by any chance you are around and free, I'm going to a comedy improv show thing with some disparate internet people next Tuesday, wondered if you were interested?? Just thought it might be nice to hang out for longer than the tube journey we managed the other week. I think it's going to be me, a rl friend, two other internet people who are fans of the comedians involved (who are ace, by the way, the comedy will be excellent), and possibly one other person who doesn't know what this but might come anyway. JOIN OUR VAGUE GATHERING. Also two of the comedians in this show have been known to improv as Holmes and Watson, not saying this is going to happen (it really probably won't) but I think I'm just including it to prove they are good people.

Date: 2011-01-14 12:24 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
Oh also, as that link will show you, by 'Tuesday' I meant 'Monday. Yep I definitely have a handle on my life

Date: 2011-01-14 04:11 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
less relevant things first: I got Lucifer Box in the post yesterday, and just now I opened it at a random page and let my eyes fall on a random place in the page and this is what I saw - "Here, among my treasured wardrobe of fabulous apparel, I would prepare for the work of the day." - I don\'t know why I find that so hilarious? BUT I DO, oh gatiss

- also due to being currently library based I have been *investigating* things, I looked up a book of Graham Greene's letters on the off chance he ever said something about why the fuck he wrote a Raffles play - the closest you get is a letter he wrote to George Orwell in 1944 - Orwell has clearly asked in the previous letter what Greene thought of Hornung and Raffles - where he says -

"Hornung’s books, other than Raffles have generally struck me as too homosexually sentimental. I tried the other day The Camera Fiend and Witching Hill, both of which I had liked as a boy, but they rang no bells at all now."

i.e. - he thought Hornung's other stuff was MORE homosexually sentimental than Raffles? LIKE THAT IS POSSIBLE. and he clearly thought Raffles was QUITE homosexy, seeing as it is a main theme in the play. I think he means 'full of homosexual sentiments', rather than 'sentimental which is homosexy', I am spending way too long thinking about those two words, what exactly he means

- your sleeping patterns alarm me, I think because I imagine myself at 3am and wince, I am an early person as you may have gathered ALSO I HOPE YOUR EXAM WENT BEARABLY

- also here is a gem from the Grahame Greene letters book that I feel I have to reproduce in full - to auberon waugh- 17th feb 1981 -

Dear Bron,

I was painfully reminded by your Diary in the 500th issue of Private Eye of the fact that I have four nipples. A doctor when I was examined medically at the beginning of World War II made the same remark that in the Middle Ages I would have been regarded at a witch. I haven’t addressed this letter to Private Eye because I would hate to think that 150,000 people who buy the paper might want to investigate my four nipples.



- SHERLOCK AND THE CHOOSING GOOD: I LIKE YOUR WORDS. it's - if he doesn't care what's 'good' and what's 'bad', or what people think regarding actions that are labelled as one or the other, why should he have any reason to pick one over the other? and 'it's harder for ME', a selfish reason, is the only really believable reason - if things don't work out for Jim Moriarty, he can clear the board and start again, which is what he's trying to do in TGG - if things don't work out for Sherlock he has to keep trying until they do.

- and back I am on the Wilde-Doyle-Hornung connection, because the preface to Dorian Gray has all that amoral stuff - "There is no such thing as a moral or an immoral book. Books are well written, or badly written. That is all."

- SO YEAH, I think there's some of that in Holmes, but you still look at the way Holmes presents himself and are like 'ok but you aren't entirely like that, are you' - and once or twice you're right

- 'in the room' - thank you for this, I was thinking 'London? surely not JUST london, surely everywhere!'

- IT IS RAINING LIKE MAD and there are also hailstones jfc

- aha re: the restaurant in ASIP, Mrs H etc - it is the UNIVERSE commenting on how suited to each other john and sherlock are! their DESTINY visible from low earth orbit

yet again

Date: 2011-01-14 04:22 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
- re: raffles casting - my copy's got a fairly nasty painting on the cover - you can see it here - with a blurry dude who I reFUSED to picture as Raffles. I took on the black tumbled hair though so I had some initial difficulty picturing Gatiss, also I assumed Raffles was younger, like late 20s - also I looked at the back cover of your edition on amazon and it says the names of the cricketers in the painting! IT DOES. A.E. Stoddart and G. Macgregor.

- I feel this is the logic: Gatiss would be brilliant as Raffles. Gatiss IS Raffles. Gatiss playing a Victorian without a moustache would be ridiculous and also a wasted opportunity. Therefore Raffles has a moustache and is sort of gingery. QUOD ERAT DEMONSTRANDUM <---------- don't really know what that literally means but I know it's what you say at times like this

- also: MONDAY, I can do Monday, that would be nice! northern line: favourite tube line amirite

- oh one more raffles thing: the intro to my copy says that the gentlemen/players, amateur/professional analogy doesn't just apply to a) the cricket and b) crime, but also c) writing - there's professional authorship and gentlemanly amateur verse etc. Bunny has that conflict of writing for money but being a gentleman

Re: yet again

Date: 2011-01-14 04:23 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
ok imagine there was a full stop at the end of that last sentence, now we're set

Re: yet again

Date: 2011-01-16 06:07 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
Dear Bron,

I was painfully reminded by your Diary in the 500th issue of Private Eye of the fact that I have four nipples. A doctor when I was examined medically at the beginning of World War II made the same remark that in the Middle Ages I would have been regarded at a witch. I haven’t addressed this letter to Private Eye because I would hate to think that 150,000 people who buy the paper might want to investigate my four nipples.



I don't even know how to - I literally don't know what to do about that. Wonderful.

ANYWAY sorry this comment is short and useless and not worthy of all of your above thoughts, which as ever I just generally agree with - also thanks for the hailstone update - but weirdly so much is happening this evening, there was something I really wanted to say in response though, OH YES super excited you have got Lucifer Box, LET ME KNOW your thoughts when you have read it. Pretty sure it is all basically like that sentence you opened it on.

Double-anyway, the admin reason I am leaving a sub-par comment is: re tomorrow! ooh I am excited, it'll be great, do you have a ticket or will you need to buy one at the place? Either way, I think we're going to meet at Leicester Square at 7pm tomorrow to go and get some food beforehand; how does that sound?

Re: yet again

Date: 2011-01-16 08:19 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
MOST OF THOSE THOUGHTS AREN'T MINE, they are other people's

meeting at 7pm sounds good - BUT - I HAVE LOST MY PHONE

this is something I do fairly often and it usually turns up eventually

BUT I have to leave v early tomorrow morning and will go to leicester square straight from work and probably won't have found it by (don't faint) 6.45am tomorrow, so, tmi I know BUT BASICALLY can you say where you're meeting, is it just outside the tube station - I will have internet tomorrow so don't feel you have to like definitively state this right now

lucifer box: cannot believe Gatiss named a character Bella Pok. GATISS.

I'm so glad Graham Greene had four nipples that I want to prompt it on the Sherlock meme. "Sherlock has four nipples. John discovers this during sex and tells him he's a witch." kiiiiiind of want to write that now jfc

Re: yet again

Date: 2011-01-16 08:21 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
oh and your actual question which apparently I forgot about: yes, will have to buy a ticket at the place

Re: yet again

Date: 2011-01-16 09:06 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
Bella Pok: across the three books there are SO MANY CHARACTERS like this. With names like that I mean. Not Dutch women.

Phone/meeting politics: okay no problem, shall we meet by the half-price ticket hut thing in the square itself? The station is fraught with the problem of having a million exits.

6.45am: literally how can you live this life

Re: yet again

Date: 2011-01-16 09:34 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
ok, ticket hut thing yes yes, also the station tends to be fraught with about 90000000 PEOPLE, the ticket hut merely with 900 people

6.45 am: I DON'T HAVE TO DO IT EVERY DAY. also have generally got used to going to bed at like 11. SO WEIRD.

Date: 2011-01-10 03:21 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
AHHHH I LOVE THIS POST. THANK YOU, THANK YOU for doing this great write-up! I feel like I have so many more dimensions of understanding wrt to Gatiss/Moffatt/the direction of the show now, whoa.

Also: talked about how incredibly fucked up Raffles, and his relationship with Bunny, are. ‘There’s one story where Raffles is like ‘imagine walking into the club, knowing you’d just killed someone, wouldn’t it be great’, [ profile] strangeumbrella said, ‘and you’re like no, Raffles! That is not ok!'

Date: 2011-01-11 03:34 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
IT WAS SO AWESOME. I suspect some of the things they said might be on the commentaries etc, I haven't heard them and it was pretty much all new to me

and ALSO I was in the SECOND ROW ([ profile] strangeumbrella and co were in the FRONT ROW though, they actually saw the mouse, I think, so their experience was more complete

RAFFLES: SO NOT OK. In so many ways.

Date: 2011-01-10 05:53 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
OMG THE JEALOUSY. I wish I had gone, if only I wasnt SEVERAL HUNDRED MILES AWAY. This writeup is el brilliante.

I am still getting over the heartbreak of Benedict Cumberbatch not being Raffles. When I first saw the promo pics for Sherlock I emailed all both of my Raffles-friends with 'OMG YAY BUT ALSO NO, LOOK AT THE PERFECT RAFFLES!!!' It is the description from The Ides of March MADE FLESH.
I will entertain Gatiss as Raffles though. To ~heal the pain~, although in my mind he is Lucifer Box.

Date: 2011-01-11 03:43 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]

ahh cumberbatch as Raffles! Now there's a premise for an alternate universe, probably for lolarious RPF where Moffat and Gatiss pitch Sherlock and get turned down, so TURN TO CRIME turn to a version of Raffles and just like keep the same cast and some of the same sets etc, IT COULD WORK

- the idea of Gatiss has pretty much taken hold in my head, I think in reality he's a bit too old for the part, but [ profile] strangeumbrella pointed out how good he'd be at Raffles's cruelty and that sold me on it.

Date: 2011-01-11 03:44 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
also: 'all both of my', that is a phrase I will be trying to use from now on

Date: 2011-01-16 11:02 pm (UTC)
ext_9241: Lost in Translation (*insomnia*)
From: [identity profile]
to which Mark gently said, ‘Fora, surely?’

That just made my night. *draws sparkly hearts*

Date: 2011-01-17 09:37 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile]


bbakerb: (Default)

April 2011

     1 2
345 6789

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 20th, 2017 05:54 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios