Chess is one thing, but if we get to the point computers can best humans in the arts-those splendid, millennia-old expressions of the heart and soul of human existence-then why bother existing? to produce human art a computer would have to find, feel, absorb reality to the point it is overcome, to the point it sobs for release. A computer perhaps could replicate every possibility but could never transfer the energy art requires to exist in the first place.

For me, there are two different things that make Sherlock Sherlock. One is, you know, within the books: obviously he's a genius with an attention to detail, his ravenous hunger for all aspects of knowledge that might feed into his work. But the major thing that makes him Sherlock is his relationship with Watson - their friendship. For me, that, I guess, is the biggest side, the more interesting side than the genius.

You're trying to bring a character to an audience, and tell stories. That's what we're all trying do.

I've never taken myself too seriously, I'm not into that.

I dont think any actor has the luxury of knowing exactly what scripts are going to turn out well and what ones arent. It would be wonderful to have that particular skill, and maybe people like Tom Cruise have it more than most, but you go into each project hoping that a good, if not great, film will come out the other end.

The whole point of being an actor is to get satisfaction out of a role -- unless you're just vain about celebrity. You're always looking for the one thing that will surprise you.

Some kids are good at math, some kids can run, and acting was an interest of mine. Because I knew you could do it for a living I decided, that's what I'm going to do.