'The Escape Artist' - A Broken World

I have to admit the idea behind the plot is quite intriguing: There is this fantastic defender who helps winning a suspected criminal, Liam Foyle, his hopeless case. And then, somehow the criminal ends up killing his defender's wife. This alone is a really challenging (not to say unrealistic) set-up and if this had been produced in the US I'm sure FOX or BBC America would have made sure to make a whole American season out of it, which equals 24 episodes. Instead of 3.

And to be honest, in this case I'm not sure if the Americans had been that wrong. After all, the first part of this trilogy feels rather rushed. It feels exactly like the introduction of a book. You get the setting, you understand the action. And my dear, there is a lot of action going on. So you know what things mean to them, but you aren't given the time to feel it too. The story does not get the time to sink in. It does not get the time to do its grim sparkle.

If this would have been an American production I guess by the time Will Burton loses his wife, in episode 5, they would have made sure we sit there blinking back tears. And as the credits roll in, our brains would slowly start to kick in thinking what can be the motivation behind a deed like this? How can a denied handshake have such consequence?  This way, we only do the thinking.

Then again, maybe the rushed feeling is just one part of the actual problem. Somehow, the story does not feel right. In addition to the obvious lack of closure, it's not exactly helping that its plot is highly unrealistic: First of all, why should have Foyle never used his own computer to access those adult sites? He was living on his own, well, if we don't count the birds. He paid for the content. Why not access it as well ? Additionally, why on earth should Foyle's sick mind come up with the idea of killing Burton's wife? That refused handshake cannot have been such a big incentive... Why should he accept to go to jail for it? What's more, why should Maggie defend Foyle? Yes, Maggie may be the second best out there, but still, she and Will know each other, what's more, she was talking to his wife. Isn't there a paragraph saying something about a personal conflict? Or does this only apply to American doctors, lawyers and investigators? But the cherry on the imaginary cake of surrealistic situations is that Will's wife decides to spend that night at the cottage... I know these days couples do not talk. But how could she miss something was going on... Besides Will certainly knew about his wife's plans for the weekend. So why not mention that lunatic he had to defend at court the other day?

So  actually, I do not know why the world Wolsstencroft created for his series does not feel right. Is it really broken or is this just what one may call the result of lazy plotting?
 

All in all, this was an puzzling introduction. It's a pity that it wasn't a puzzling story as well.

Losing a Bit of Magic

You made me forget myself
I thought I was someone else.
Someone good.  - Lou Reed, Perfect Day

Usually, I'm writing about stuff which is somehow related to Doctor Who, Sherlock, or both. But I hope you don't mind if this post will be an exception. It deals with the real world for a change. It deals with the death of Lou Reed.

If you are anything like me, you may not have spent a lot of your time listening to his songs. At least, I'm honest enough to admit that I didn't, even though there are some pieces written by him I love more than I could put down in words, as well as many others which simply do  not speak to me. But my dear, those which speak have a great story to tell, and every time I'm so eager to listen.

I always thought it to be strange that a stranger, a guy who is several times my age, has a better idea of what love means to me and of what *my* personal 'Perfect Day' would look like than most of the boys I have dated.  That was the gift of Lou Reed. His words have manage to touch the heart of people he never knew, and never will. That's what he left behind, and that's why he is so dearly missed.

PS: I can't help including Neil Gaiman's Lou Reed tribute; excellently written and with just the right amount of heartbreak. So hop over to The Guardian. I promise, you won't regret reading.

Why Sherlock Is Better Than the Original

Yes, I know what people say about books. And usually, I'm on their side. Green's The Fault in Our Stars is better than the film will ever manage to be. Not to mention Tolkien's LotR triology. I was about 11 when I read the books. That's why the films are NOTHING like the moving pictures I saw in my head. 

However. There is one exception. Sherlock. I hope people are wrong and that there are actual people who are familiar with the originals, such as 'A Study in Scarlett' or 'The Hound of Baskevilles'. And even though I have to admit that his stories would make every screenwriter of NCIS jealous, there is still one thing which Doyle gets wrong.  It's the way he writes Watson. His Watson is flat. He doesn't make much. His only purpose is to see (not to observe!) and to write. 

I accept that there weren't many 'How to Write Good' manuals around in 1895. But one of the most basic things which even Doyle should have known about writing is that you really do not want to have any flat characters in your story. They just spoil the whole thing. You want proof?

Let's take 'A Study in Scarlett' vs 'A Study in Pink'. For me, without doubt, the BBC adaptation wins. Scarlet starts with Watson describing his situation in a rather fancy (read boring) manner.  Doyle could have cut the first  paragraphs down to a few sentences. After all, no one is reading Doyle's book because of Watson. And delivering what your readers are expecting to read is one of the most crucial facts about writing which  everyone picking up a pen to put a story down should keep in mind. Additionally, a big part of the story focuses on Holmes' clever deductions to show that he is an extraordinary guy. But most of it does not add much to the actual story.

Now. Pink has those showing-Sherlock-is-nuts parts as well. Actually, they are present in the most authentic manner I've ever seen, keeping as close to the original as possible. And yet. The story feels completely different. Why? It's because of John. This John makes up his own mind. He may have less accurate (or more realistic) deduction skills, but he is not afraid to stand up against Sherlock whenever he thinks his friend is wrong. He's not afraid of an argument. He means business. At the same time, unlike Watson, he does not take himself too important.

Because of this, Doyle's Watson ends up being the guy with whom Holmes shares a flat and he becomes his mere audience, while Sherlock and John are not just flat mates but friends. Holmes does not really rely on Watson. Anyone else could fill that position just fine. On the contrary, Sherlock needs John just as much as John needs Sherlock. Sure, for different reasons. While Sherlock manages to add some content to John's life, John becomes some sort of Sherlock's moral compass keeping him 'human'. Otherwise, Sherlock's customers may hire a serial killer on him before Sherlock could actually finish the case... And even though Sherlock dose not care about what people are thinking about him, John's friendship matters to him. And, what's more, their friendship becomes one of his obvious weaknesses. It's so obvious that Moriarty uses it against him. This is why the BBC's 'Reichenbach Fall' is more touching than the original. Here, Sherlock is not fighting a villain or for his reputation. He is willing to die as a fraud if it means to save John and to ease his friend's pain. I'm not sure if Doyle had been able to say the same about his Sherlock Holmes. 

Doyle's stories are about an extraordinary clever man solving extraordinary puzzles. Sherlock is about two extraordinary people having an extraordinary friendship. And when it comes to writing a good story, friendship always wins. Always.

Re-watching 'The Great Game'

And the re-watching continues. There weren't many unanswered questions this time.  And I can't believe I've managed to wait more than year a to find out what happened next. Clicking 'next episode' feels like heaven right now. Oh, those lucky things which will get into Sherlock after 'The Empty Hearse'. How much I envy them. There *really* should be a built in one-year-waiting button in the next DVD box-set.

So, enough chatting; here we go again. 

• Why does Sherlock identify the handwriting on the envelope with the phone as that of a woman's? Who wrote it to him? Moriarty? Did he fake his own handwriting? Or does he just write like a girl? Hang on, is that an insult?

• Who'd be stargazing from London? Well, I know about Greenwich but, still, wouldn't there be too much light pollution to enjoy the view?

• Why does Sherlock *pretend* to do the shopping? John wouldn't have left faster...

• Oh_my_dear#1 When Sherlock sees John at the pool he HAS to think for a second that he's Moriarty.

• Oh_my_dear#2 What's worse. That's what has to come to John's mind too. But he cannot tell his friend because he has to repeat what Moriarty is saying to him.

• Oh_my_dear#3 When Moriarty finally show up in person they have to think they won't make it out alive. Well, that's at least what's on John's mind. After all, now they know how he looks like. So why should he let them go. That's why John's willing to sacrifice his life. Well, that and the fact that he really likes Sherlock.

• Oh_my_dear#4 Sherlock has no idea what to do with the gun after Moriarty has left.

Re-Watching 'The Blind Banker'

 Just some things which came to my mind when re-watching 'The Blind Banker'.

• What happened to the man Sherlock was fighting while John was out shopping? Why is that guy Sherlock's message for the people of the Jaria Diamond case? Why shouldn't John know about this?

• Why does Sherlock not let John in the flat after he enters it via the balcony? Does he want to make sure it's safe? Or does he not want to be distracted by his friend?

• What did Sherlock need that pen he'd been waiting for 'about an hour'? Good, him catching it without looking is quite impressive. I give you that. But you could have made him actually do something with it.

• Why does John use Internet Explorer? WHY?

• What is Sherlock's motivation behind him not telling John about that guy in Soo Lian Yao's flat? Is he that vain? Or is there more behind it?

• Couldn't help noticing that John's phone has great picture taking abilities illuminating the whole chiphre on the wall. In 2o1o. And it's an old phone he got from Harry... 

• The most unrealistic part of the episode is that Van Coon has so many books. Have you met people making a great living working at banks? More importantly, have you met their bookshelves?

• The guy at the ticket selling boot at the circus has to notice that John is not Sherlock. When Sherlock turns up he introduces himself to John's date right in front of the ticket seller's eyes.

• Love the way John says 'this is... art', as if art were something disgusting.  

• And most importantly, why didn't Van Coon ask his secretary to give him the hair pin back? Why was he willing to die for it?

We Have a Date

No, not that kind of date, but one for Sherlock's eagerly awaited 3rd season. Well, sort of.

Because actually, it's not us who have a date, but our dear fellows on the other side of the big pond, who are going to find out how Sherlock survived his fall on 

January 19 at 10 p.m.

You may want to save it. 

However, maybe not, because in the brave new world of copyright infringements and streaming sites you do not need to be Sherlock Holmes to deduce that BBC One may want to broadcast season 3 a bit earlier than that, i.e. even if you happen to live on the North pole, you could watch season 3 only a few hours after the lucky guys in the UK.

So, the big question regarding the British air date still remains. One thing for sure, this time PBS Masterpiece won't make the mistake of letting fans wait 4 additional months. Just in case you didn't know, while the  Britons could enjoy season 2 already on January 1 2o12, PBS Masterpiece only broadcast it on May 6. Unsurprisingly, the fact that you could watch "A Scandal In Belgravia" in Russia only one day after the British air date caused a bit of a scandal in its own right.

But back to the British air date. Taking the fact into account that the BBC's 'the two of us against the rest of the world'-trailer is actually entitled 'Original British Drama 2013' there's hope season 3 airs this year.

Re-watching 'A Study in Pink'

Statistically speaking, Sherlock may be the most watched TV series on earth. Seriously. Just start to imagine how often you can finish watching all Sherlock seasons in one year. And it's been three since 'A Study in Pink'. 

Watching an episode again and again and again has side effects. And I'm not only referring to the irresponsible amount of Sherlock references on tumblr or pinterest, by which one may assume that Sherlock does not have only 6 episodes by know, but six seasons. At least. But, I'm rather trying to hint at the many many details to which you start paying attention when watching an episode a second time. And frankly, most Sherlockians have seen the complete series a bit more than that. In fact, most may say they've lost count.

So, to cut a short story even shorter, here is a list of a few things which struck me as odd when re-watching Moffat's masteripeice 'A Study in Pink'.

• Why did the bottles of the other victims contain more than one pill?
   
• Sherlock and Watson leave 221b Bakerstreet at daylight to visit the crime scene. And all of a sudden it turns dark. Sure, it's winter, but how far can Brixton Lauriston Gardens be? I know, according to Google Maps, about 30 minutes... My point is, however, still standing.
   
• Why should Anderson be wearing a different deo when Sally is the one who did not make it home last night?
   
• Why is the pink lady's umbrella white when she has a pink suitcase. Come on. It's more difficult to get a pink suitcase than a pink umbrella. Have you never been shopping?
   
• I love the fact that Anderson (well, Jonathan Aris) can pronounce the German word 'Rache' correctly.
   
• And, I also love that Sherlock, the big genius, follows anyone's first instinct, and 'decides' not to trust the cabbie when taking the bottle the cabbie apparently wanted to take himself, i.e. the one he did not offer to Sherlock. According to Sherlock it was not a double bluff. Just a bluff.  It's either that or he is the one having trust issues and not John. Then again, anyone would find it difficult to trust a murderer. 

Did Sherlock Choose the Right Bottle?

Frankly, since watching 'A Study in Pink' that question has been on many people's minds. So did he?

Let's look at the facts.

The big difference between the cabbie and his 'playmate' is that the cabbie and his playmate have utterly different motives. The cabbie's passenger wants to prove their wits. They want to show off; pretty much what Sherlock is trying to do all the time. The cabbie on the other hand does not mind what other people are thinking about him. His motive is money. He has a sponsor and he wants to earn as much as possible by playing along.

Another point which should not be ignored is that the cabbie knows which is the good bottle. And the playmate knows the cabbie knows... And the cabbie knows the playmate knows that he knows... You get the idea.

Furthermore, the cabbie states that he's secret is that he's able to read people's minds. But is that enough? After all, people are changing their minds all the time, especially when they are about to make such a life threatening decision. There are simply too many variables the cabbie cannot account for. Even if the victim's first idea was to take the other bottle, out of instinct, and then, as the reasonable part of their mind is kicking in, to change their decision and to take the one handed by the cabbie. Then they change their minds again, thinking that maybe that's what the cabbie wanted them to do all along, and so on. Reading the other's mind is not helping in this game as before the cabbie tosses the good/bad bottle his victim has not made up their mind completely. This means, the cabbie does not know which bottle to draw his victim's attention to before doing so.

Yet, he has played the game 4 times and the odds seems to have been irresponsibly in his favour. And  here he is, trying his luck for a 5th time. What's more, he seems to be sure that he'll win again, even when facing the most clever man walking the surface of the earth. If he had had doubts, he could have switched off the phone and chosen another passenger instead. And even after making Sherlock choosing a bottle, he does not seem to lose his faith in beating him. His behaviour does not change. Picking up the other bottle from the table, all he says is 'interesting' as if he wasn't talking about his own life. So the cabbie is either too stupid for his own good, something he does not really seem to be, or he's not playing a fair game.

Because the only way to ensure that his victims will always pick the wrong bottle, is by offering them two wrong bottles. The obvious downside of this theory is that the cabbie ends up with one bad bottle as well. But playing a crooked game, he knows the pills. He knows what makes them poisonous. And he could take an antidote before the game is on. By this he makes sure that he cannot be beaten by his opponents. Besides, it makes him sure to be able to outwit Sherlock. He knows Sherlock will be  fascinated by the nature of the game, that it will be tempting him and that he will not consider the intellectual challenge to be a fraud. Showing that he's clever is such a holy action to Sherlock that playing a crooked game does not cross his mind.

How to Do (or Not to Do) Re-makes

Remakes are a mixed box. Naturally, there's always the risk of creating something worse than the original. At the same time, they offer the chance to add a different perspective which can be awesome.

So, when Fox announced to remake Boradchuch  I was curious of what they'd turn it into. A 23 episodes/season long TV series (something the BBC/ITV cannot even start to imagine)? A zombie apocalypse wild western style in which neighbours are threatening each other with guns? A media-company thriller? More guns? Let's involve the government by making Danny's dad being an important member of the Republican party. Have I mentioned guns? It's a cliche, but the biggest difference between an American and a British crime-series is that the American series always feature an irresponsible amount of guns.

I simply wanted to see Fox taking the story's basic (actually already very American) set-up and turning it into something different. After all,  it's the differences which make a good remake live. 

However, when it became obvious that Chibnall is part of Fox's production team, and what's more, he's writing scripts, my excitement started to fade. Sure, he promises to make things different:

I’m very, very fascinated to see this story in a different landscape with an acting ensemble that’s just as strong but taken from really great American actors. The DNA of the original is absolutely intact and filtered through a new prism, so it should still feel just as vibrant, and interesting, and strange, and unique, and beautiful, but just in a different setting — and then it’s exploring the dramatic opportunities that that offers up. We’re not gonna do the terrible version. We’re gonna do a great version.

But getting him on the team makes the 'out of the box' thinking process a lot more difficult. It's like involving Doyle into BBC's recent adaptation of Sherlock. As Moffat mentioned in an interview, Doyle would probably hate what he and Gatiss have made of his stories. But this does not stop Sherlock from being an immense success.

And some days later, just as if the world would have wanted to prove my point, EW announces that Fox got David Tennant to play the lead. So much for Chibnall's 'great American actors' comment from the quote above. We know the British are great, but it's as if someone over there wasn't understanding the basic idea behind remakes. One clue: getting the same actor doing a different accent is not exactly the way the big successful remakes have started. Well, then again, there's always a first time for everything.

The Show Must Go On

Ever since Peter Capaldi has been announced to be the 12th Doctor (and Hurt's non-Doctor assumedly increasing the number of used regenerations by one) the question of how Moffat (or the then showrunner in charge) is going to avoid the 12 regenerations rule has been on fans' minds.  After all, nobody expects the show to drop dead when Peter Capaldi will decide to bid his farewells.

And while it's not difficult to come up with an explanation of why the Doctor could have more than 12 regenerations, it's difficult to find an option without changing the show itself. 

Because the problem with saying that the Time Lords were in charge of the 12 regenerations rule and with them gone, the Doctor can have as many regenerations as he pleases is not that it's terribly unoriginal (at least for the Mighty Moff's standards) - well, that too - but that it would grant the Doctor immortality, at least in the right circumstances. And when dying stops having consequences (important consequences, I'm not saying that getting a new *body* is not a consequence, but there may be more important ones, erm, like ending a life) then dangerous situations stop being dangerous. Life is the most valuable thing someone can have. And as soon as it stops being at stake people simply tend to care a lot less than before.

Unfortunately, even Neil Gaiman's idea is failing to address the problematical immortal part of this issue:

MY OPINION (which is not Canon) is that the regeneration limit is a lot like the speed limit. You can break it, but things get a lot more dangerous if you do. The Time Lords were the traffic cops: they enforced the limit. With them gone, the Doctor can keep regenerating beyond 13, but with consequences.

On the plus side, he suggests that regenerating more than 12 times should have 'consequences' but apparently in his opinion dying should not be one of them. And that's not a good point to be at as a writer.

Let's not forget that we already had an immortal character, the famous Captain Jack Harkness. Plot-wise I do not think it did him any good. And that Torchwood isn't running anymore just emphasises the point.

One of the most important things from which Moffat's episodes derive their suspense is that the Doctor can die. Not only in an 'oh River*, put that gun down'-way, but that he can run out of regenerations. He is not immortal. Dying matters to him. Not only because it makes him change, but also because every regeneration brings him one step closer to his maximal 'life expectancy'. Unlike Superman, or Spiderman he has one. Unfortunately, the moment the Doctor stops having a life-expectancy the biggest difference between him and Marvel's superheroes stops to exist. And I'm not sure if we'd like to see the Doctor being turned into a superhero.
____

* or taking the 11th Doctor into account that may read *oh Doctor* instead

Moffat on Continuty Fixes, Scarfs and Shoelaces

Ladies and Gentlemen, this is the Nerdcubed team interviewing the Mighty Moff.

And actually, as nerds go, the big, important questions which have been nagging Who's fanbase do not get asked, because it's a well known fact that Moffat would not answer them. So, why waste time and ask him in the first place.

But there is some new information we get. The Moff promies that the Peter-Capaldi-in-'The Fires of Pompeii'-thing will be addressed in the future...

He also says why the Doctor seems to have a certain fondness for humans and Earth: we look like his people and additionally, he points out that we do not see those stories in which he interacts with 'jellymonsters on jellyplanet' which are, 'frankly just too boring to watch'. And yes, those are actual quotes.

One of the most shocking things (as far as I'm concerned) is that Steven Moffat considers the TARDIS to be a machine which closely resembles a living creature, while the series actually makes us suggesting the opposite (a living thing which resembles a machine): after all, the Doctor states several times that the TARDIS cannot be built and that at least parts of it are grown, and  biologically, it's only living things which grow.  At the same time, Moffat says that he sees the TARDIS as a party animal who thinks about the Doctor as her pet.

The Moff does not approve of the popular regeneration theory, saying that the Doctor gets close to immune to whatever has induced the regeneration process. He mentions that in 'The End of Time' was not the first time the Doctor had to regenerate due to a radiation overdose.

Then we have some comments on the role of the Silence when it comes to Who's several continuity fixes, why Doctor Who and the show's ratings are not going down, and that Moffat is not planning to leave a mark on the UK's other cultural landmarks.