It’s been hard not to notice the slew of remakes, reboots, sequels and re-imaginings in film and TV recently. Proving the old saying that there is nothing more original than an old idea – or did I just make that up? No matter, it’s true whichever way you look at it. Undeniably a sequel to a popular film or TV show can be very well received and indeed lucrative but do we really need another version of the same thing? Well, it seems that the short answer to this is yes, yes we do.
There seems to be a sort of unwritten rule that certain films should never be remade (For me it is absolutely and categorically Casablanca) but for everything else it pretty much seems a free for all. To be honest, I generally thought that remaking something that seems so perfect is probably not a good idea – for example, as much as I like Nicholas Cage as an actor, never get me onto the subject of the remake of The Wicker Man, the original of which is my favourite horror film. However, with some films/shows the writing is just too good to stick with one definitive version. Also, getting the next generation into something that was originally exquisite seems to get harder and harder, I’ve heard people say that they can’t bear to watch black and white films so the beauty of Casablanca or It’s a Wonderful Life will be totally lost to them which is a terrible shame. I’ve also heard people say that subtitles on a film completely spoils it which leaves other such works of genius unwatched to them, which is such a shame. For me, I am an equal opportunities viewer which means everything from masterpiece to mundane and mediocre – I will quite literally watch pretty much anything but I do find it hard to watch some remakes. I have never had the courage to watch the Get Carter remake due to my incredible fondness for the original, I’m sure that the story transports very well but Michael Caine was so ecstatically brilliant in it that, to watch the remake would somehow be sullying the memory of the original.
Some writing is just too good to ignore and so many adaptations have been made and this can be both a good and a bad thing. It’s all down to personal taste at the end of the day really, a remake of some astonishingly good writing can be very impressive – I particularly enjoy the new Sherlock TV Series, taking the storylines and quality writing of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and making it more relevant to a 21st Century world full of modern gadgets and technological advancements actually makes for some good quality viewing. I wondered exactly how an up to date Sherlock would work but frankly I am pleasantly surprised. Adaptation of the novel The Woman in Black is currently wowing at the box office, firmly placing Daniel Radcliffe in the viewers mind as ‘not just Harry Potter’ as his acting is superb. He says very little throughout the film but his expressions, the shadows clouding his wide blue eyes are enough to convince you of his acting calibre. I very much enjoyed the adaptation but for me, the creepiest version still has to be the 1989 ITV film which still to this day leaves a very bad taste in the brain. So you see, even when you know the storyline of the film, it can still make for compelling viewing.
I had the pleasure of seeing the theatre adaptation of Inspector Morse a few years ago starring an almost unrecognisable Colin Baker as the titular character and, as enamoured with John Thaw’s performance in the TV detective drama, I still thoroughly enjoyed the play. It is often hard to see another actor in a role for which you feel has already been carved out but it can also be truly refreshing. Various different Miss Marple adaptations have been made and somehow we expect the actor in Miss Marple to change, almost like the Doctor in Doctor Who.
With something like Doctor Who, it is expected that a new doctor will always succeed the current one so it is always something you should be prepared for but it still takes time to adjust. When Russell T. Davis rebooted Doctor Who for the 21st Century he must have had a tough job on his hands – it could have very easily been ignored but the introduction of the feisty Rose Tyler and the eccentric yet emotionally wounded and lonely doctor added a new dimension to the character and made it a terrific success – to some this was a triumph but to others, bringing back Doctor Who and fiddling with the format and style caused quite a stir. It’s hard not to hold the originals in high regard but sometimes it is time for new blood and this appeared to be the boost that the franchise needed.
It is expected that a new Dracula film will be made in the future now that Hammer is back and as a huge fan of Christopher Lee as Dracula, it does seem daunting that someone else may take on the role but some things are just not meant to stop and again the sacrifice, so to speak, of the steadfast attitude against any other actor playing the role is something I will have to do in order to enjoy the new film.
As for reboots, a few years ago on hearing that a new Star Trek film was to be made with new younger cast, I waited in trepidation to see how it would turn out as I was very partial to the original William Shatner led version and I very much enjoyed the Patrick Stewart helmed series. Having these previous successes in my head, I did ponder as to whether I would enjoy the new film. Luckily my husband is a fan of Star Trek and didn’t want to miss the film and so was happy to go and see it with me. I came out of the film thinking ‘Wow! That was amazing!’ and subsequently ended up watching the film at the cinema again within a very short space of time, which for me is the hallmark of a good film. It seemed to do pretty well at the box office too which leads me to believe that I wasn’t the only one who felt this way, i daresay that this triggered interest in the original series and successive series and so garnering new fans, introducing the next generation to The Next Generation as it were.
Sequels are always as anticipated as they are dreaded, there have been some real stinkers released as sequels that have somehow detracted something from the original. I was never a huge fan of the film The Matrix but any interest I may have had in it was obliterated by the sequel, being as it was for me just not as good as the first instalment. Mind you, I still maintain my view that Ghostbusters 2 was just as good as the original, if not better – being that i liked the idea of goo making things dance – admittedly the whole Statue of Liberty walking through the streets of New York did seem a bit cringe worthy but at the time, it was awesome! So many sequels strive to be as good as the original, an extension of the feeling that the original gave us, but do they ever really pull it off? For me, I was a huge fan of Red Dwarf as a child and a teenager and as an adult and on hearing that they were making three new episodes a few years ago, I was frankly dreading it. Red Dwarf filled my childhood with comedy and a thirst for space knowledge and an interest in the stars and there was a point when I started to feel my enjoyment waning in later series as I got older which saddened me. Instead of feeling sorry for myself, I just watched the earlier episodes and revelled in the glorious sci-comedy of them. Knowing that new episodes were to be made did excite me, a childlike hope that it would be how it was. In all honesty, i enjoyed the first new episode and felt it was getting back to its best but I felt that as the other two episodes continued I felt more and more disappointed and realised that, sometimes wanting something back isn’t going to make it as good as you remember it being in the past. New episodes are currently being made and I will watch them, how can I possibly resist, but I hope that I enjoy the new series as much as I used to. Even though I am an adult, I still have the childlike enthusiasm and the obsessive nature to continue watching something with great tenacity if it proves to be great entertainment.
Prequels are often lauded or panned also but sometimes are effective in helping the viewer see what lay before the original. For example, Rock and Chips – the prequel to Only Fools and Horses – seemed to be very well received, even with an unlikely yet seemingly inevitable once you saw him actor as Del Boy. The rich tapestry of life in the Trotter household before the story that we know and love began was certainly compelling viewing, not just for recognising the events or people that made the characters of the original who and what they became but to meet the people whose lives were just as interesting as their descendants.
Sometimes the reimagining of a film or TV show can actually make for interesting viewing. The most recent Dawn of The Dead reimagining was actually very skilfully crafted and just as chilling in its own right as the original George A. Romero classic. Unfortunately, it is sometimes not as successful as hoped – for example, The Bionic Woman reimagining only spurred 8 episodes into life before its untimely cancellation.
In a lot of ways, it is easy to see how a sequel, a remake, a reimagining, a prequel etc could be considered lucrative and just what everyone wants or needs but ultimately, it has to be good in its own right to stand a chance of appealing to audiences old and new, regardless of their previous experience of the original.
There are some films that I sincerely hope that are never remade, as I mentioned before – with something as beautiful and awe inspiring as Casablanca, I just couldn’t bear to see a remake. But that’s entirely my decision, whether or not to watch something. Also, my opinion is just that, an opinion and I daresay that there are a vast amount of people who would love to see Casablanca in a more modern guise but for me, the film is perfection that I just don’t want to see improved or bedraggled. I think everyone perhaps has a film that they would loathe to see remade – perhaps something as seminal as Star Wars: A New Hope, although I believe that this has already been done by fans to much praise, it will probably not replace the original in the hearts of the true fans.
I will continue to anticipate remakes, sequels, reimaginings, reboots, prequels and as many other formats as can be conjured but I just hope that whatever is made is good in it’s own way before hitting the screens. I’m entirely open minded but just don’t expect me to watch another actor in the role of Rick telling another actor that he is no good at being noble kid without feeling a sense of sadness. Some things are meant to remain the way they are in all our hearts and that is mine.
As for everything else, I’m not averse to a little more Sherlock please...
Tuesday, 21 February 2012
Thursday, 16 February 2012
Sherlock – The Reichenbach Fall (BBC One) More thoughts.
WARNING - Contains many, many spoilers so only continue reading if you have seen the show or know the story of the episode.
At the risk of seeming a bit obsessed with this puzzle, I have been mulling over the matter and I started looking at it from a different angle. I might be on completely the wrong track and I daresay that may be the case but it’s something else to consider.
I’ve watched all of the episodes from series one and two again as I thoroughly enjoyed them but something that was said in an earlier episode made me consider that I might be looking at things all the wrong way. Sherlock said that ‘we mustn’t jump to conclusions’ and I realised that I had jumped to a lot of conclusions and made a lot of assumptions which i just believed to be true without considering other options.
On any of these points i could be entirely wrong so please don’t be fooled into thinking I have some sort of insight or insider knowledge as I have none, just theories based on looking at the situation another way.
During the episode ‘The Great Game’, when Sherlock enters Mrs Hudson’s spare room/flat where he finds the shoes in the middle of the room he says briefly under his breath what seems to be “The curtain rises” as if this is the start of a performance. Sherlock is already big news in the media and due to John’s blog he is receiving messages from all over the world asking for help – he has perhaps become something of a liability. If someone has the ability to detect crime, surely they would have the knowledge to commit crimes, for good or for bad reasons. His popularity growth is something of a pain to both he, as he doesn’t seem to appreciate the attention, as well as to his brother and possibly his country in general. In the first two episodes of series two he not only forces Mycroft and his organisation to abandon a plan they had regarding the plane but he effectively breaks into a military base using his brother’s identification - his ability to solve puzzles and show off may put peoples lives in danger and that is very dangerous indeed. Therefore he has to be reigned in or removed, not just because Jim Moriarty wants to ‘burn’ him, but because he is a major risk – perhaps the final problem? For Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes seemed to become something of a burden as well as the people wanted more Sherlock and he wanted to write other works so he effectively killed off his creation in order to pursue other works but the public wanted Holmes back. Perhaps the final problem is that Sherlock in the TV programme is considered too much of a burden due to his skills and has to be taken out of the equation but he is still very useful so needs to be kept alive or Mycroft wants him alive and for the rest of the world to believe he is dead. His showing off and pride in his intellect is too much, and they do say that pride comes before a fall...
Once I started thinking in this way I started to consider a few other possibilities as well, perhaps Moriarty was just an actor, hired to take on a role and that Sherlock knew this. Perhaps if Sherlock’s death was faked, why couldn’t Moriarty’s death be faked also? The only person who saw Moriarty die was Sherlock and even though we all heard a bang and saw Moriarty fall, couldn’t this have been a trick also? At the end of the Baskerville episode, Sherlock was shuffling through some sauces at the table while John was eating and he asked him if he wanted ketchup or brown sauce, perhaps he was thinking about using a sachet of blood in the faking of his death? In the words of Jonathan Creek (Or possibly David Renwick seeing as he wrote the shows) ‘no one ever believes how far you will go to fool your audience’ and as elaborate as those plans would be, once you start thinking that maybe we shouldn’t take Sherlock at face value the whole situation looks different.
Or perhaps Moriarty was entirely genuine and did die but Sherlock knew he was to die too and wanted to do it on his own terms, perhaps he was looking for ways to fake his death and had already tested hanging and found it not to be effective due to the hanging mannequin in his home. At some point in one of the episodes he mentioned jumping out of the window several times or something to that effect so maybe he decided that falling was the way he was going to fake his death if he should have to do it?
When Moriarty is sat on the roof in the fall scene he is listening to ‘Stayin’ Alive’ by the Bee Gees, in a previous episode this was his ringtone so perhaps he wasn’t just listening to the track, perhaps it was a phonecall and when he touched the screen the line was opened so either someone could listen or record the conversation. Perhaps the whole rooftop scene was entirely played out to make Sherlock’s demise seem more realistic or perhaps it was real but the snipers that dotted around to kill Sherlock’s friends were just a red herring – the sniper’s crosshairs are seen only on the ground on John Watson after Sherlock has jumped so perhaps the sniper was not for John but for Sherlock himself – either he was to jump or he would be killed therefore he needed some help in faking it. The gunman in Baker Street may not have been to kill Mrs Hudson but to kill Sherlock if he were to return to the house and in the case of Lestrade there is only a man turning to his office rather than any gun seen so this may be to throw us off the scent.
Maybe Mycroft couldn’t protect him and the assassins dotted around Baker Street were for Sherlock and Mycroft was the one who organised their deaths? The person who shot the assassins was trying to protect Sherlock.
I really want to think that Sherlock’s tears are real in the fall scene but after seeing him cry on two other occasions in order to manipulate a situation, crying during his suicide phonecall would not be too much of a stretch for him. Perhaps Sherlock knew that he was going to have to die and tried to find a way of faking it and making it convincing. Maybe the tears were genuine as Sherlock didn't know he would survive? If John were to know that Sherlock was really alive he might blow his cover due to his emotional attachment to his friend, borne out when he says ‘Why should you care what other people think of me?’ so he couldn’t be permitted to know that Sherlock was alive just yet.
When Sherlock asked Molly for help, it was very easy for me to jump to the conclusion that she is a pathologist and therefore would have access to all sorts of equipment to fake his death and fake the results of DNA tests or whatever but perhaps it is more simplistic than that? Perhaps, as he knew that she was loyal and even though he hurt her she still stayed true to him, she also knew that he felt he was going to die soon so perhaps he entrusted her with some other information – not assistance with faking his death but something to do afterwards like get a message to John or to get something for him? Being a pathologist, she seems to be in a good position to help him fake his death and so forth but maybe he thought that he really was going to die and asked her to carry out some task after his death.
Perhaps he didn’t intend to fake his death at all and that it was just coincidence, or luck that a bin lorry was passing at that time or maybe he knew the times of the bin collections and took advantage of the situation?
Molly knew that Sherlock felt he was going to die and perhaps this was genuinely how he felt, knowing that he was becoming more and more exposed. Perhaps Moriarty had help committing crimes from Mycroft in order that Sherlock would be drawn in on the situation and it would lead ultimately to his demise? I don’t think Mycroft meant any harm to Sherlock, perhaps he was protecting him? Mycroft’s claim that he told Moriarty all about Sherlock’s life seems pointless really as Irene Adler explains in a previous episode that Moriarty told her how to play the Holmes boys so he already knew his enemy – perhaps Mycroft told Moriarty details of Sherlock’s life in order to provoke him into challenging Sherlock, to fan the flames of his hatred? Moriarty didn’t just want to kill Sherlock, he wanted to burn him and to make him a disgrace so perhaps Mycroft was just giving Moriarty the ammunition to go after his brother hoping or knowing that his brother would know what to do. I think it extremely unlikely that a man like Mycroft would make such a foolish mistake as to tell a master criminal all about a family member by mistake. It wouldn’t be the first time that Mycroft has put Sherlock in danger.
Realistically I found that i have been concentrating on the mechanics of how Sherlock faked his own death without really considering why or how or what other reasons could be behind the situation so I started looking at it in a different way. As I said before, these are just thoughts about the possibilities of the situation. I may be wildly wrong but it is certainly another viewpoint. What are your thoughts?
At the risk of seeming a bit obsessed with this puzzle, I have been mulling over the matter and I started looking at it from a different angle. I might be on completely the wrong track and I daresay that may be the case but it’s something else to consider.
I’ve watched all of the episodes from series one and two again as I thoroughly enjoyed them but something that was said in an earlier episode made me consider that I might be looking at things all the wrong way. Sherlock said that ‘we mustn’t jump to conclusions’ and I realised that I had jumped to a lot of conclusions and made a lot of assumptions which i just believed to be true without considering other options.
On any of these points i could be entirely wrong so please don’t be fooled into thinking I have some sort of insight or insider knowledge as I have none, just theories based on looking at the situation another way.
During the episode ‘The Great Game’, when Sherlock enters Mrs Hudson’s spare room/flat where he finds the shoes in the middle of the room he says briefly under his breath what seems to be “The curtain rises” as if this is the start of a performance. Sherlock is already big news in the media and due to John’s blog he is receiving messages from all over the world asking for help – he has perhaps become something of a liability. If someone has the ability to detect crime, surely they would have the knowledge to commit crimes, for good or for bad reasons. His popularity growth is something of a pain to both he, as he doesn’t seem to appreciate the attention, as well as to his brother and possibly his country in general. In the first two episodes of series two he not only forces Mycroft and his organisation to abandon a plan they had regarding the plane but he effectively breaks into a military base using his brother’s identification - his ability to solve puzzles and show off may put peoples lives in danger and that is very dangerous indeed. Therefore he has to be reigned in or removed, not just because Jim Moriarty wants to ‘burn’ him, but because he is a major risk – perhaps the final problem? For Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes seemed to become something of a burden as well as the people wanted more Sherlock and he wanted to write other works so he effectively killed off his creation in order to pursue other works but the public wanted Holmes back. Perhaps the final problem is that Sherlock in the TV programme is considered too much of a burden due to his skills and has to be taken out of the equation but he is still very useful so needs to be kept alive or Mycroft wants him alive and for the rest of the world to believe he is dead. His showing off and pride in his intellect is too much, and they do say that pride comes before a fall...
Once I started thinking in this way I started to consider a few other possibilities as well, perhaps Moriarty was just an actor, hired to take on a role and that Sherlock knew this. Perhaps if Sherlock’s death was faked, why couldn’t Moriarty’s death be faked also? The only person who saw Moriarty die was Sherlock and even though we all heard a bang and saw Moriarty fall, couldn’t this have been a trick also? At the end of the Baskerville episode, Sherlock was shuffling through some sauces at the table while John was eating and he asked him if he wanted ketchup or brown sauce, perhaps he was thinking about using a sachet of blood in the faking of his death? In the words of Jonathan Creek (Or possibly David Renwick seeing as he wrote the shows) ‘no one ever believes how far you will go to fool your audience’ and as elaborate as those plans would be, once you start thinking that maybe we shouldn’t take Sherlock at face value the whole situation looks different.
Or perhaps Moriarty was entirely genuine and did die but Sherlock knew he was to die too and wanted to do it on his own terms, perhaps he was looking for ways to fake his death and had already tested hanging and found it not to be effective due to the hanging mannequin in his home. At some point in one of the episodes he mentioned jumping out of the window several times or something to that effect so maybe he decided that falling was the way he was going to fake his death if he should have to do it?
When Moriarty is sat on the roof in the fall scene he is listening to ‘Stayin’ Alive’ by the Bee Gees, in a previous episode this was his ringtone so perhaps he wasn’t just listening to the track, perhaps it was a phonecall and when he touched the screen the line was opened so either someone could listen or record the conversation. Perhaps the whole rooftop scene was entirely played out to make Sherlock’s demise seem more realistic or perhaps it was real but the snipers that dotted around to kill Sherlock’s friends were just a red herring – the sniper’s crosshairs are seen only on the ground on John Watson after Sherlock has jumped so perhaps the sniper was not for John but for Sherlock himself – either he was to jump or he would be killed therefore he needed some help in faking it. The gunman in Baker Street may not have been to kill Mrs Hudson but to kill Sherlock if he were to return to the house and in the case of Lestrade there is only a man turning to his office rather than any gun seen so this may be to throw us off the scent.
Maybe Mycroft couldn’t protect him and the assassins dotted around Baker Street were for Sherlock and Mycroft was the one who organised their deaths? The person who shot the assassins was trying to protect Sherlock.
I really want to think that Sherlock’s tears are real in the fall scene but after seeing him cry on two other occasions in order to manipulate a situation, crying during his suicide phonecall would not be too much of a stretch for him. Perhaps Sherlock knew that he was going to have to die and tried to find a way of faking it and making it convincing. Maybe the tears were genuine as Sherlock didn't know he would survive? If John were to know that Sherlock was really alive he might blow his cover due to his emotional attachment to his friend, borne out when he says ‘Why should you care what other people think of me?’ so he couldn’t be permitted to know that Sherlock was alive just yet.
When Sherlock asked Molly for help, it was very easy for me to jump to the conclusion that she is a pathologist and therefore would have access to all sorts of equipment to fake his death and fake the results of DNA tests or whatever but perhaps it is more simplistic than that? Perhaps, as he knew that she was loyal and even though he hurt her she still stayed true to him, she also knew that he felt he was going to die soon so perhaps he entrusted her with some other information – not assistance with faking his death but something to do afterwards like get a message to John or to get something for him? Being a pathologist, she seems to be in a good position to help him fake his death and so forth but maybe he thought that he really was going to die and asked her to carry out some task after his death.
Perhaps he didn’t intend to fake his death at all and that it was just coincidence, or luck that a bin lorry was passing at that time or maybe he knew the times of the bin collections and took advantage of the situation?
Molly knew that Sherlock felt he was going to die and perhaps this was genuinely how he felt, knowing that he was becoming more and more exposed. Perhaps Moriarty had help committing crimes from Mycroft in order that Sherlock would be drawn in on the situation and it would lead ultimately to his demise? I don’t think Mycroft meant any harm to Sherlock, perhaps he was protecting him? Mycroft’s claim that he told Moriarty all about Sherlock’s life seems pointless really as Irene Adler explains in a previous episode that Moriarty told her how to play the Holmes boys so he already knew his enemy – perhaps Mycroft told Moriarty details of Sherlock’s life in order to provoke him into challenging Sherlock, to fan the flames of his hatred? Moriarty didn’t just want to kill Sherlock, he wanted to burn him and to make him a disgrace so perhaps Mycroft was just giving Moriarty the ammunition to go after his brother hoping or knowing that his brother would know what to do. I think it extremely unlikely that a man like Mycroft would make such a foolish mistake as to tell a master criminal all about a family member by mistake. It wouldn’t be the first time that Mycroft has put Sherlock in danger.
Realistically I found that i have been concentrating on the mechanics of how Sherlock faked his own death without really considering why or how or what other reasons could be behind the situation so I started looking at it in a different way. As I said before, these are just thoughts about the possibilities of the situation. I may be wildly wrong but it is certainly another viewpoint. What are your thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)