Series/Sherlock

Well, surely it comes under Translation Convention? As the characters aren't really speaking French, they're not going to use the subtleties and distinctions that exist in the French language but not the English one.

Surely they are just using load words right? that seems in chracter to me

One of the reasons I detest dubs, with very, very few exceptions. Ben's dub voice was good, but Martin's was dreadful. Also, when you dub something, half the actor's performance goes with it. Subtitles FTW.

Here is a clip with a bunch of different dubs. Interesting that Sherlock is still using 'vous' when he invites John out adventuring. I suppose they haven't really spent time together yet.

They sound pretty badass in the German and Spanish dubs.

edited 27th May '12 9:32:10 AM by HopelessSituationWarrior

If I understand what you're saying, the translator simply went with "vous" for all the dialogue (except between John and Sherlock) as a neutral default pronoun, to avoid inserting subtlety where none exists in the original English. The problem with this explanation is that neither "tu" or "vous" is ever neutral — you always have to consider the context and the relationship between speakers, especially now that "tu" is used in more situations than before. If you replace every "you" with a "vous," you can make certain relationships sound less familiar than they actually are; the opposite would occur with "tu."

My point is simply that the translator's choice wasn't arbitrary but was necessarily informed to some degree by his or her interpretation of the relationships onscreen. That being said, I'll reiterate that there may be nothing weird about this particular translation to a French viewer; Canadian attitudes are probably somewhat different.

I'm not sure what you mean by load words...

Yes. And quite sexy in the latter, one might add.

edited 28th May '12 3:49:56 PM by Embryon

And it's my guess that the translator didn't want to put too much thought into the subtleties, and decided at the outset which relationships got which pronoun, and plowed on through.

I'd hate to think the translator was being that mechanical, but I guess it's possible. At least there was a shift from "vous" to "tu" somewhere in the John/Sherlock relationship, which shows that he/she was paying attention. I don't think you can really call it a "subtlety" to a French speaker though — it may seem like a pointless distinction from an English perspective (and arguably, it is!) but in practice the choice of pronoun make a big difference in the tone of the conversation.

I can definitely see how the distinction would matter. I've had enough exposure to other languages to often lament that English is lacking a lot of distinctions other languages have kept. I once wrote a poem about five or six Latin verbs that translate to "love".

Sherlock was nominated for thirteen Emmys, including Miniseries of Movie, Lead Actor (Benedict Cumberbatch), Supporting Actor (Martin Freeman), Directing and Writing.

Besides the ones mentioned above, I'm especially pleased with the nominations for Cinematography and Music Composition - it is a beautiful show, both the visuals and the music.

Sherlockology has all the nominations listed here: http://sherlockology.tumblr.com/post/27552064743/sherlock-emmy-noms-2012

If only one had to win, I'd pick Martin Freeman. I've never seen a more expressive performance than his Watson.

(Though it is a wrench to choose between that and Writing.)

edited 21st Jul '12 4:32:20 AM by DomaDoma

I wouldn't pick it for writing. The only Outstanding episode this season has been The Reichenbach Fall.

Since when is Cumberbatch the lead actor? We all know that the real main character of this series is John Watson.

Eh, even that was a bit weak.

Edit: I hope Moriarty really is dead, too.

edited 21st Jul '12 2:36:12 PM by Medicus

This season has been hit and miss, but still doesn't top the blind banker.

In awfulness? Indeed.

Okay, Blind Banker really was dreadful, but that aside, what are you fools talking about? The dialogue is as snappy as a 1930s romantic comedy and - surrounded by nitpicking nerds though this discussion may be - it's got the only really clever and surprising Holmes plots I've seen since Doyle. And Doyle wasn't exactly flawless - certainly their "Empty House" promises to hold together a lot better, if only because it was planned from the getgo.

EDIT: Andrew Scott is talking about his role in a misty past tense, so odds are decent. I hope so too.

EDIT 2: Oh, hey, I've got a theory, but I'd better spoiler the whole thing out.

So you know how basically the entire plot of Reichenbach was drawn from the off-the-cuff justification for why Watson is only writing this now - i.e. someone is spreading libel about what happened? Well, the off-the-cuff justification for why Watson only wrote EMPT six years after it happened was that Holmes forbade him to publish. If they go into some reason why Sherlock should reveal himself to John (and Lestrade) but generally keep things hush-hush - and then, unlike the original stories, actually stick to it - well, it could be interesting, don't you think?

edited 22nd Jul '12 5:28:51 AM by DomaDoma

I'm not sure I like Martin Freeman being nominated for Supporting Actor - Sherlock is nearly as much his story as it is Sherlock's, particularly in the first series. Of course, one does not want one's lead actors competing for the same award.

Huh, I found a novel by Mark Gatiss. Apparently, it's a bit like Sherlock Holmes.

That's so the show wins more awards. I don't like it because it's blatant gerrymandering and insincere.

It's really not. Its more like Jeeves and HP Lovecraft, with increasingly large doses of Bond as the series develops. There's a cute parodic reference to Holmes at one point in the first novel, and the final chapter's an extended reference to... something, but I can't say what.

I can understand why they do it, but likewise, it irritates me.

Lovecraft and Wodehouse? Now I feel like I should have borrowed it from the library. I've had a hankering for that particular combination since Neil Gaiman mentioned it off-hand in a parodic short story of his.

Finally watched this.

At first I was put off by the idea of it being set in the modern day.

Then I saw it, and I was like O_O.

Is that a good O_O or a bad O_O?

It's made me more open to the Basil Rathbone movies. The one time I saw one I thought "they made it contemporary? How lazy." The appeal of Sherlock though is that everything has to be reinterpreted so that it works in the modern day, and applying that mindset to the Rathbone adventures, maybe it's not as silly as I thought to translate Holmes into a man who smokes cigarettes, drives an automobile, and keeps bombsight plans out of Nazi hands.

I still can't watch the Basil Rathbone era stories, or most older Holmes for that matter, because I can't bear watching the buffoon they call Watson. Seriously, Holmes is a genius who is frequently intolerant of other people's inability to follow his train of thought. He would never have kept around a complete idiot like the old Watsons. Not to mention that one cannot be a competent doctor and be as bloody stupid as those Watsons.

The Todd. Your argument, sir.

edited 9th Aug '12 4:39:09 AM by maxwellelvis