PDA

View Full Version : Sherlock Holmes (Robert Downey Jr, Jude Law: Christmas 2009)



13_CBS
2009-05-20, 04:11 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOr4i-wbH-M&feature=popular

Judging from the trailer, it looks like they're making it into a Victorian-era action movie, and not necessarily a detective story (though the actual movie may be different). :smallconfused:

kpenguin
2009-05-20, 04:13 PM
No Moriarity.:smallfrown:

A good Holmes movie should have Moriarty.

Mando Knight
2009-05-20, 04:59 PM
He must'a built that tool belt in a cave. With a box of scraps. :smalltongue:

Thufir
2009-05-20, 05:16 PM
If the movie is anything like the trailer, I'll consider it a travesty.
Why must film-makers do this? Why must they take a well-known and good work of fiction, then make a film which bears almost no resemblance to it other than the name?! :smallfurious:

It looks like a reasonable film, but it's not Sherlock Holmes by any stretch of the imagination, and they shouldn't try to pretend otherwise.

Starscream
2009-05-20, 05:26 PM
No Moriarity.:smallfrown:

A good Holmes movie should have Moriarty.

I disagree. He barely appeared at all in the original Doyle stories. Sure, it was claimed that he was the mastermind behind many of the crimes that Holmes had solved, but that was a retcon.

And to me what would really make a good Holmes story is getting Watson right. Ever since Nigel Bruce took on the role he has been primarily portrayed as a tubby comic relief fool. In the actual stories, he was a fit and intelligent man who was a great help to Holmes.

bluewind95
2009-05-20, 06:00 PM
..................

.............................

Please, please tell me this is an April Fool's joke. Even though it's not April. :smallfrown:

Nevermind the lack of Moriarty (he was only in, what, one story?) What kind of a character did they make Holmes? Some kind of comic clumsy guy? And come on, he gets practically seduced by a woman? And even forgetting how impossible THAT is, they didn't even bother to make it Irene Adler, at that?! Plus, it's just an action movie. I don't see any of what really made Holmes in it. :smallfrown:

I will pretend that travesty does not exist. Let those who don't enjoy or know the real Sherlock Holmes character go and enjoy it. But I can't watch one of my favourite book characters ever be turned into something so unrecognizable. :smallfrown: Especially since they take away everything that made me like him. :smallfrown:

Weezer
2009-05-20, 06:17 PM
Its going to be an insult to the memory of Holmes, nuff said. Though I do agree that its fine that there's no Moriarty, he wasn't that prevalent in the books.

Nameless
2009-05-20, 06:17 PM
It's not Holmes, but it is awesome. :smallbiggrin:

Anteros
2009-05-20, 06:28 PM
It doesn't look bad to me. It's a movie trailer. Of course they're going to focus on the action of the movie. If they gave us a five minute trailer of Holmes standing still and talking to Watson no one would go see it.

Eldan
2009-05-20, 07:37 PM
Heh. For a moment there I thought they said Sherlock Holmes. OF course, they said Sherwock Bones instead. The famous pit-fighter, boxing world champion, high diver, lady's man and private detective of london.

Always wanted to see a movie about him.:smallbiggrin:

Connington
2009-05-20, 07:43 PM
Holmes was supposed to be a skilled fighter, even if the plot rarely gave him a chance to show it off. But this is ridiculous. Maybe it's like Bridge to Terabithia, where they made about 30 seconds of Narnia style CGI to get people to see the movie without scaring them off, or giving away spoilers?

Fri
2009-05-20, 08:06 PM
I love the novel, but still can see the charm of a tongue in cheek, actiony, non book adaptation, of sherlock holmes movie ala... say the league of extraordinary gentlemen. Or say, the brother grimm movie, where the stories we known are actually a 'dramatization' by watson.

Though, if you want to see book sherlock holmes, it seems that you'd be sorely dissapointed. Or want to wring something. It's understandable, really.

Next: Poirot as a Belgian Secret Agent.

Mando Knight
2009-05-20, 09:07 PM
Actually, I kinda like how Downey at least looks as Holmes... reminds me of House (who in turn was based on Holmes...), and basically looks like a Sherlock Holmes to me.

kpenguin
2009-05-20, 09:09 PM
I disagree. He barely appeared at all in the original Doyle stories. Sure, it was claimed that he was the mastermind behind many of the crimes that Holmes had solved, but that was a retcon.


So? Irene Adler appeared in but one story as well, but she's in the movie.


Nevermind the lack of Moriarty (he was only in, what, one story?) What kind of a character did they make Holmes? Some kind of comic clumsy guy? And come on, he gets practically seduced by a woman? And even forgetting how impossible THAT is, they didn't even bother to make it Irene Adler, at that?! Plus, it's just an action movie. I don't see any of what really made Holmes in it. :smallfrown:

Uh.... I'm pretty sure that is Irene Adler. Apparently they're making her a femme fatale.

Dienekes
2009-05-20, 09:16 PM
Well... huh.

I won't pretend to be highly knowledgable on Holmes (I only read 4) but that does not seem at all like what I read.

bluewind95
2009-05-20, 09:20 PM
Uh.... I'm pretty sure that is Irene Adler. Apparently they're making her a femme fatale.


.................. *cry*

Irene Idler was pretty awesome. She was one step ahead of Holmes without having to resort to seduction. Smarts, not looks. And now they're making her that way. I was REALLY hoping that wasn't Irene.

So that makes it TWO good characters entirely destroyed. They really should call that movie something else. :smallfrown:


Well... huh.

I won't pretend to be highly knowledgable on Holmes (I only read 4) but that does not seem at all like what I read.

It isn't. Oh, it really, really isn't.

kpenguin
2009-05-20, 09:20 PM
From the producer:


A lot of the action that Conan Doyle refers to was actually made manifest in our film. Very often, Sherlock Holmes will say things like, 'If I hadn't been such an expert short stick person, I would have died in that' or he would refer to a fight off screen. We're putting those fights on screen.

bluewind95
2009-05-20, 09:21 PM
Oh, that is fine, the action. I don't mind THAT. It's the whole seduction thing with Holmes that is entirely out of character.

Calmness
2009-05-20, 09:25 PM
Reminded me of The Spirit, or a James Bond film.... damn.

kpenguin
2009-05-20, 09:28 PM
Oh, that is fine, the action. I don't mind THAT. It's the whole seduction thing with Holmes that is entirely out of character.

I don't see Holmes getting seduced in the trailer. I do see him getting kneed in the groin and then stripped naked and chained to a bed

averagejoe
2009-05-20, 09:43 PM
I disagree. He barely appeared at all in the original Doyle stories. Sure, it was claimed that he was the mastermind behind many of the crimes that Holmes had solved, but that was a retcon.

And to me what would really make a good Holmes story is getting Watson right. Ever since Nigel Bruce took on the role he has been primarily portrayed as a tubby comic relief fool. In the actual stories, he was a fit and intelligent man who was a great help to Holmes.

Heck, I'd like to se Holmes done right, which I've only ever seen one actor do. (I forget his name, though.) This one looks like a ripoff of House. And I say that without any irony.

Rutskarn
2009-05-20, 09:44 PM
Every single stupid knee-jerk reaction fiber in my body is screaming, "No, no, oh god no this is gonna suu-huuu-uucck!"

Unfortunately, I can attack this response from no flank of reason or sense.

In other words: Skeptical, guys. Real skeptical.

Starscream
2009-05-20, 09:55 PM
Irene Idler was pretty awesome. She was one step ahead of Holmes without having to resort to seduction. Smarts, not looks. And now they're making her that way. I was REALLY hoping that wasn't Irene.

Yeah, way to screw up a perfectly good character.

kpenguin
2009-05-20, 09:59 PM
Hey, at least they're not portraying Watson as the bumbler he usually is.

Ichneumon
2009-05-21, 02:25 AM
I don't think you can do justice to Sherlock Holmes with making a movie about him that is not primarily a mystery-solving detective story. The trailer reminds me of The Dark Knight trailer, only difference is that that one really was good and theme appropriate.

Hawriel
2009-05-21, 03:40 AM
Saw the trailer when I went to see Terminator. It wasnt Holms. It was some grubby pervert privat eye in victorian England.

EvilDMMk3
2009-05-21, 04:49 AM
Gah. Skra. Whgua. WTF?
?????
I WILL FIND THEM AND KILL THEM TO DEATH!

SmartAlec
2009-05-21, 05:28 AM
Heck, I'd like to se Holmes done right, which I've only ever seen one actor do. (I forget his name, though.)

Jeremy Brett, perchance?

bosssmiley
2009-05-21, 09:39 AM
If the movie is anything like the trailer, I'll consider it a travesty.
Why must film-makers do this? Why must they take a well-known and good work of fiction, then make a film which bears almost no resemblance to it other than the name?! :smallfurious:

It looks like a reasonable film, but it's not Sherlock Holmes by any stretch of the imagination, and they shouldn't try to pretend otherwise.

I think it'll be like "Van Helsing": a bloody awful film that's fun to watch when roaring drunk. :smallbiggrin:

It should be fine so long as you're able to put from your mind the idea that this "Sherlock Holmes: Action Hero" (*KABOOM!*) is in any way even tangentially related to the famous consulting detective created by Arthur Conan Doyle.

(full disclosure: I sincerely believe that this film will be entirely worth the price of admission if Jude Law's character ("Watson you say? Must be some other Watson...") gets punched in the face. Or, even better; shot.)

BTW: Holmes done right = Basil Rathbone or Jeremy Brett. :smallcool:

averagejoe
2009-05-21, 02:56 PM
Jeremy Brett, perchance?

Actually, I think it might be, from what I can tell from a cursory YouTube search. I saw these productions a long time ago, and would have to see them again to be sure, but it is very possible. Thank you!

Mando Knight
2009-05-21, 11:40 PM
Gah. Skra. Whgua. WTF?
?????
I WILL FIND THEM AND KILL THEM TO DEATH!

Who? Robert Downey, Jr? I need him to finish Iron Man II first. :smallannoyed:

Fri
2009-05-21, 11:54 PM
Not saying that you guys are wrong, but this reminds me on a review for the grimm brothers movie back than that basically said. "That is wrong! grimm brothers' life wasn't anything like that at all!"

BRC
2009-05-22, 12:05 AM
My theory

Producer one: Hey, this script looks good. A Victorian Era Action-Comedy-Mystery-Thriller type thing. We want to make it into a movie.
Writer: That's Great!
Producer Two: just one thing. Throw Holmes in there.
Writer:..What?
P1: Well, it's already set in Victorian era London, and the name recognition will give things a big boost. Change the Protagonist to Sherlock Holmes, throw in a little Watson, and sprinkle a few other names in there for good measure.
Writer: But, these are origional characters, and I hardly ever read Doyle's work. P2: Don't Worry, 99% of the audience won't have read it either. Now get to it!

Either that or RDJr is being typecast as "Talented Ladies Man who happens to be an *******"

kpenguin
2009-05-22, 12:12 AM
Oh come on. You guys have no faith at all.

Zencao
2009-05-22, 03:41 AM
I agree with the penguin. Adding a tiny bit more bad-ass to the Holmes character won't do any harm, he was already a bad-ass. Just an 'off page' one. (Hell, his climactic battle with Moriarty happened off page!).

Plus, if I saw this with original characters I would think "Wow, this movie looks brilliant!", even if it rapes Holmes canon, I can probably just accept it as a movie on its own merits.

And again, this is the trailer, and if TvTropes has taught me anything, it's to never trust a trailer... :P

Thufir
2009-05-22, 06:59 AM
Oh come on. You guys have no faith at all.

That trailer doesn't deserve any :smallyuk:

@Zencao: It's not the badass I have problems with. It's the rakish lovable rogue persona exuding from 'Holmes', as opposed to the cool, calculated intellectual that is the actual Sherlock Holmes.


Plus, if I saw this with original characters I would think "Wow, this movie looks brilliant!"

This is my point. They are original characters. As such, they should have original names, removing all references to Sherlock Holmes so I can appreciate the movie for what it actually is.

averagejoe
2009-05-22, 09:54 AM
Oh come on. You guys have no faith at all.

The movie industry has given me little reason to have faith in anything. Films are bad until proven otherwise; this seems like the smart way to go. Not saying it will be bad, but if experience is any indicator the chances are high.


I agree with the penguin. Adding a tiny bit more bad-ass to the Holmes character won't do any harm, he was already a bad-ass. Just an 'off page' one. (Hell, his climactic battle with Moriarty happened off page!).

Plus, if I saw this with original characters I would think "Wow, this movie looks brilliant!", even if it rapes Holmes canon, I can probably just accept it as a movie on its own merits.

And again, this is the trailer, and if TvTropes has taught me anything, it's to never trust a trailer... :P

If I saw this with original characters I would think, "Huh, another lame action flick," and move on. As a supposed Holmes flick it has the potential to be actually kind of good because it might deviate from the lame action flickiness that was clearly emphasized in the trailer.

I'm not holding my breath though.

bluewind95
2009-05-22, 10:27 AM
@Zencao: It's not the badass I have problems with. It's the rakish lovable rogue persona exuding from 'Holmes', as opposed to the cool, calculated intellectual that is the actual Sherlock Holmes.


This. So much.

It doesn't matter how "good" the story is. Just with this they've made it a BAD Holmes story.

As for Irene seducing Holmes.... come on. She makes him let his guard down in order to kiss him (whatever intentions she had for that). Holmes? Letting his guard down? For a woman, no less?

I dunno, it's like they didn't read anything about Holmes except "He was a detective in London Victorian era who had a friend named Dr. Watson". And then they read "Dr. House and Dr. Wilson are based on Holmes and Watson" and they ran off with that idea plastering Dr. House and Dr. Wilson's characters into Holmes and Watson. But House and Wilson are extremely different from Holmes and Watson, in personality, in the dynamic, everything. But they seem to have used the House/Wilson dynamic with Holmes and Watson. Watson was a smart, educated, loyal man. Not the snide person he seemed to be towards Holmes. Holmes was an extremely cold (to the point Watson often compared him to a machine), extremely intelligent and selectively educated man who was charming only insofar as he was polite and elegant. Not a roguish ladies' man by any stretch of the imagination. There was no way he'd let his guard down for a woman, not even the fabled Irene Adler. As for Irene? She was described as being beautiful and elegant, not to mention very intelligent. Holmes was unimpressed by her physically, but always respected her intelligence since she outsmarted him. She didn't need to flirt with him to let his guard down in order to strip him naked and tie him to a bed. Many people actually thought Holmes had to be gay, he was THAT unimpressed by women. I personally think he was just seriously asexual, since he was also unimpressed by men.

In short, this just seems like Dr. House Dreams Detectives and not one tiny little bit like a real Holmes film. Whatever the story is, the fact that they butchered the characters THAT badly immediately makes it a bad Holmes film. It could have been a good generic detective film, but we'll never know that since they decided to say it was a Holmes film. Sherlock Holmes is one of my favourite characters ever, so I can't bear to watch this.

I don't have much of a problem with movie makers deviating from the canon material, so long as they keep to the spirit of it, to make it look like it could have been canon material. But completely butchering the very essence of the work? That deserves no faith.

Finn Solomon
2009-05-22, 08:07 PM
Hey it has Rachel McAdams in a bodice, Robert Downey Jr. being awesome and Jude Law being witty. I enjoy a faithful adaptation now and again but I'm definitely going to watch this movie.

Flame of Anor
2009-05-22, 08:20 PM
It's not the badass I have problems with. It's the rakish lovable rogue persona exuding from 'Holmes', as opposed to the cool, calculated intellectual that is the actual Sherlock Holmes.This. So much.

It doesn't matter how "good" the story is. Just with this they've made it a BAD Holmes story.

Yes, exactly. Holmes is supposed to be brilliant but completely exasperating.

Rutskarn
2009-05-22, 08:28 PM
You know, I actually went away, thought about it, then decided this might not be as bad as all that.

And then I thought about it again, and realized that yes, yes it will.

At this point, my only consolation is that I won't, in fact, have to see this movie, or even acknowledge its existence.

Yulian
2009-05-22, 08:50 PM
Hey, at least they're not portraying Watson as the bumbler he usually is.

That may be the only good element. Watson was, after all, the ass-kicker of the team. He was a former professional soldier who was in the second Amglo-Afghan War. He was extremely competent, a fine medical doctor, a good shot, and a decent fighter. Also a bit of a ladies man.

As for the rest...there's quirky, but this...this doesn't feel like any interpretation of Holmes I can ever recall.

- Yulian

kpenguin
2009-05-22, 09:03 PM
@Zencao: It's not the badass I have problems with. It's the rakish lovable rogue persona exuding from 'Holmes', as opposed to the cool, calculated intellectual that is the actual Sherlock Holmes.

This wasn't directed at me, but I'll address it anyway. I see NOTHING that indicates that this Holmes is some emotional jokester. NOTHING that indicates that he was somehow "seduced" by Irene Adler. I'm not saying that this Holmes looks like the Holmes as we all know him, but don't misconstrue him as something that far from the source material.


Watson was a smart, educated, loyal man. Not the snide person he seemed to be towards Holmes.

So? This is an adaption of the books and I have no problem with the movie making him a bit bitter towards Holmes. Frankly, its no stretch of imagination that he would be and in the books he does describes Holmes's flaws with a touch of frankness.

Furthermore, the movie seems at least willing to not portray him as the bumbling fool he has been portrayed. He will be smart. He will be educated. He will also be a ladies man, which leads me to suspect that Irene Adler will end up, by the end, his love interest rather than Holmes's.


Holmes was an extremely cold (to the point Watson often compared him to a machine), extremely intelligent and selectively educated man who was charming only insofar as he was polite and elegant. Not a roguish ladies' man by any stretch of the imagination. There was no way he'd let his guard down for a woman, not even the fabled Irene Adler.

How exactly is the movie Holmes charming? The sticking point in my mind is his "considerable intelligence" line, which sounds quite exasperating. If I knew someone who said something like that in real life, I'd want to punch him in the face.


As for Irene? She was described as being beautiful and elegant, not to mention very intelligent. Holmes was unimpressed by her physically, but always respected her intelligence since she outsmarted him. She didn't need to flirt with him to let his guard down in order to strip him naked and tie him to a bed. Many people actually thought Holmes had to be gay, he was THAT unimpressed by women. I personally think he was just seriously asexual, since he was also unimpressed by men.

And what makes you think he was somehow seduced. The trailer shows him fighting her, her kneeing him in the groin, and him falling to the ground. That gives a clear chain of events that would lead him to being tied to the bed naked without having him seduced.


In short, this just seems like Dr. House Dreams Detectives and not one tiny little bit like a real Holmes film. Whatever the story is, the fact that they butchered the characters THAT badly immediately makes it a bad Holmes film. It could have been a good generic detective film, but we'll never know that since they decided to say it was a Holmes film. Sherlock Holmes is one of my favourite characters ever, so I can't bear to watch this.

I don't have much of a problem with movie makers deviating from the canon material, so long as they keep to the spirit of it, to make it look like it could have been canon material. But completely butchering the very essence of the work? That deserves no faith.

And if adhering to the essence is not the goal? I don't suppose you complained that Wicked was butchered the intentions of Frank Baum.


The movie industry has given me little reason to have faith in anything. Films are bad until proven otherwise; this seems like the smart way to go. Not saying it will be bad, but if experience is any indicator the chances are high.

I disagree. When it comes to films, I take the position that they are generally good. Even if plot and characterization tend to suffer in a movie, they are but a couple parts, albeit an important part, of the cinema experience.

If I cannot respect the script, I can at least respect the talents of the actors or the beauty of the special effects or the choreography of the action or the composition of the sound or the effects of the score or the inventiveness of the shots or the subtle shades of the lighting or the design of the costuming or any other myriad things that come together to make film.

When all these fail, and fail on a regular basis, then shall I adopt an attitude of cynicism toward movies.

Zencao
2009-05-22, 09:11 PM
Penguin, can I have your e-babies?

averagejoe
2009-05-22, 09:19 PM
I disagree. When it comes to films, I take the position that they are generally good. Even if plot and characterization tend to suffer in a movie, they are but a couple parts, albeit an important part, of the cinema experience.

If I cannot respect the script, I can at least respect the talents of the actors or the beauty of the special effects or the choreography of the action or the composition of the sound or the effects of the score or the inventiveness of the shots or the subtle shades of the lighting or the design of the costuming or any other myriad things that come together to make film.

When all these fail, and fail on a regular basis, then shall I adopt an attitude of cynicism toward movies.

I agree. A good score or great visual effects can salvage a lot. However, while not actually bad, most movies aren't anything to write home about. With action movies especially it all seems pretty flat, uniform, and interchangeable. There are notable and not-so-notable exceptions, but by and large it's hard to appreciate these things when there's little to appreciate. It has been a long time since I've seen an action flick that was actually memorable and wasn't, well, a basic action flick, nearly interchangeable with any other basic action flick. Of course, maybe that's my fault, but there's only so many average and mediocre films I'm willing to wade through to find something worth watching.

Mordar
2009-05-22, 11:52 PM
I disagree. When it comes to films, I take the position that they are generally good. Even if plot and characterization tend to suffer in a movie, they are but a couple parts, albeit an important part, of the cinema experience.

If I cannot respect the script, I can at least respect the talents of the actors or the beauty of the special effects or the choreography of the action or the composition of the sound or the effects of the score or the inventiveness of the shots or the subtle shades of the lighting or the design of the costuming or any other myriad things that come together to make film.

When all these fail, and fail on a regular basis, then shall I adopt an attitude of cynicism toward movies.

For the most part, I agree with what you're saying. This time, in particular, though, I think that this movie will be a horrible "version" of the boys from Baker Street...likely a very successful horrible version featuring a type-cast Downey. I'm reminded of a Simpson's episode where the corporate shills...er, producers..."fix" Poochy the Rocking Dog. Too often we have seen beloved but niche books/genres turned into craptastic movies (see, for instance, the D&D movie, Eragon, several comic book movies, etc.) by producers attempting to make them commercial monsters. I'm not cynical yet...just not optimistic when it comes to something like this.

That being said, I reserve the right to say "They told you so" when it's horrible, and as is the way of the Internet I will disavow any memory of this discussion :)

- M

Ichneumon
2009-05-23, 12:41 AM
There is at least one good thing this movie will do/has done already, that is encourage me to read some of the books.:smallamused:

Helanna
2009-05-23, 10:49 AM
There is at least one good thing this movie will do/has done already, that is encourage me to read some of the books.:smallamused:

The same for me. I've only ever read about half of one story. Is there a free, legal place to read these online, or do I have to go out and buy the books?

And I have to say, from what I know of Sherlock Holmes . . . this just isn't. I guess I'll wait until reviews come out (reviews from people who've actually read Holmes) and see if it's worth seeing.

Ichneumon
2009-05-23, 11:43 AM
The same for me. I've only ever read about half of one story. Is there a free, legal place to read these online, or do I have to go out and buy the books?


Yes, there is. Here I found one of them, http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Hound_of_the_Baskervilles

The Hound of the Baskervilles is the only Holmes story I ever "read", or actually my father read to me when I was little.

Zencao
2009-05-23, 12:44 PM
You can also find them collected under one app in the Itunes appstore, not a waste of a dolla fiddy if I do say so myself.

SlyGuyMcFly
2009-05-24, 11:11 AM
It's not Holmes, but it is awesome. :smallbiggrin:

Looking at the trailer, this sums up my feelings on the matter. However, with a bit of luck it will be one of those so very misleading trailers that have virtually nothing in common with the movie.

The casting looks pretty decent.

Fri
2009-05-24, 12:28 PM
tvtropes actually sums the premise of sherlock holmes quite well...


He's a battle-scarred veteran of the war in Afghanistan. He's a substance-abusing dilettante grad student. Together, They Fight Crime (http://www.theyfightcrime.org/)!

Oh, and don't worry for those who felt that their opinion is worthless since they never read the stories. I've read all Holmes short stories and novels (they're quite popular in my country, though, personally I prefer poirot) and I stand in Kpenguin's side.

kpenguin
2009-05-24, 08:02 PM
He's a battle-scarred veteran of the war in Afghanistan. He's a substance-abusing dilettante grad student. Together, They Fight Crime (http://www.theyfightcrime.org/)!

That's actually an excellent description of Neil Gaiman's Holmes fanfic A Study in Emerald.

Mewtarthio
2009-05-24, 11:33 PM
That's actually an excellent description of Neil Gaiman's Holmes fanfic A Study in Emerald.

So I'm not the only person who hopes this turns out to be one of those Holmes/Lovecraft crossovers! :smallwink:

I mean, come on, we've got the guy talking about the end of the world and the resurrection of the dead and I swear that one woman was floating...

kpenguin
2009-05-24, 11:35 PM
Yeah, that was my first instinct when it showed Holmes battling the supernatural.

But... it looks like the antagonist is going to be a Satanist. Pity.

Mando Knight
2009-05-24, 11:58 PM
Yeah, that was my first instinct when it showed Holmes battling the supernatural.

But... it looks like the antagonist is going to be a Satanist. Pity.

Well, Holmes has done that recently...
...

...With Batman! (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BatmanTheBraveAndTheBold)

kpenguin
2009-05-25, 02:28 AM
Well, Holmes has done that recently...
...

...With Batman! (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BatmanTheBraveAndTheBold)

I think you'll find my blade as sharp as my wit!

God, I love that show.

Zencao
2009-05-25, 06:55 AM
Yeah, that was my first instinct when it showed Holmes battling the supernatural.

But... it looks like the antagonist is going to be a Satanist. Pity.

I highly doubt he'll be battling anything actually supernatural. The 'witness' say's he saw him rise from the grave, and Holmes will probably disprove that pretty quickly.

Ichneumon
2009-05-25, 08:51 AM
Maybe they are plotting against Holmes?

Comet
2009-05-25, 09:45 AM
So I'm not the only person who hopes this turns out to be one of those Holmes/Lovecraft crossovers!
I'd pay good money to see a movie version of Sherlock Holmes: the Awakened. Or the aforementioned Gaiman story.

Sherlock Holmes vs. Arsene Lupin could be gold too :smalltongue:

The Glyphstone
2009-05-25, 10:54 AM
I'd pay good money to see a movie version of Sherlock Holmes: the Awakened. Or the aforementioned Gaiman story.

Sherlock Holmes vs. Arsene Lupin could be gold too :smalltongue:

I wish they'd bring back the animated Sherlock Holmes In the 22nd Century....that was a funny show.

Revlid
2009-05-25, 11:13 AM
I'm rather looking forward to this. It looks quite good.

Muz
2009-05-26, 06:47 PM
Yeah, that was my first instinct when it showed Holmes battling the supernatural.

But... it looks like the antagonist is going to be a Satanist. Pity.

Want to see (read about, actually) Sherlock Holmes battling the supernatural? (Er, well, Arthur Conan Doyle, actually, but doing it with the guy who "inspired" Holmes' character...)

The List of 7 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_List_of_7)

Shame that it's so hard to find anymore. I'd LOVE to see THAT turned into a movie. :smallsmile:

...Er, it's fiction, I should add. (Or so they want us to believe!) :smallwink:

Lunaya
2009-05-26, 07:30 PM
*cue music* Sherlock Holmes, Action He-ro! *end music*

Okay, just..no. It's not going to be authentic Sherlock Holmes by any stretch of the imagination. The Victorian Era doesn't typically make for a good action flick. As a fan of great literature, I am slightly miffed.

That said, I will most likely see the movie anyway for the mere fact that advertising works. I saw explosions. I like explosions. Don't hate me. :smallfrown:

Comet
2009-05-27, 07:24 AM
Want to see (read about, actually) Sherlock Holmes battling the supernatural? (Er, well, Arthur Conan Doyle, actually, but doing it with the guy who "inspired" Holmes' character...)

The List of 7 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_List_of_7)

Shame that it's so hard to find anymore. I'd LOVE to see THAT turned into a movie. :smallsmile:

...Er, it's fiction, I should add. (Or so they want us to believe!) :smallwink:
Mah Gawd. I need to do some book shopping. Now.
I'm a sucker for this kind of stories. Conspiracies, occult themes, storyline that sounds like bad fanfiction if you try to sum it up into one sentence...
Great stuff!

And yeah, if they decide to make Holmes an action hero, go all out! It would make a great film. I fear this is going to be instead one of those pieces that dont know what they are trying to accomplish and end up failing at everything.

Edit: Man, that sounded more pessimistic than I intended. I do hope that it's going to be a fun movie.

TheDeeMan
2009-05-28, 11:59 AM
Just the thought of Downey Jr. as Sherlock Holmes in a Guy Ritchie movie makes me want to puke.

Dee

Yulian
2009-05-29, 12:15 AM
Okay, just..no. It's not going to be authentic Sherlock Holmes by any stretch of the imagination. The Victorian Era doesn't typically make for a good action flick.


You take that back, philistine!

Harry Flashman, Dr. Nikola, Master of the World, 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, Fu Manchu, Dracula and on and on...

Kipling, man! Kipling!

I shall thank you to take a closer look at the potential for adventure in Victorian literature.

Good day to you, sir!

- Yulian

Lunaya
2009-05-29, 12:57 AM
You take that back, philistine!

Harry Flashman, Dr. Nikola, Master of the World, 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, Fu Manchu, Dracula and on and on...

Kipling, man! Kipling!

I shall thank you to take a closer look at the potential for adventure in Victorian literature.

Good day to you, sir!

- Yulian

Okay, okay! I take it back. It's just that when I think of Victorian London, I don't usually think of explosions and well dressed men diving out of Buckingham Palace into the Thames...at least I think that was Buckingham Palace.

Ah man, now I can't trust my own judgment on anything. :smallsigh:

Erts
2009-05-29, 11:51 AM
Bleh....
If you want to see someone who actually reminds me of Holmes, watch House.
You simply can't do a movie of Holmes, because the modern audience would hate it.

bluewind95
2009-05-29, 12:10 PM
Bleh....
If you want to see someone who actually reminds me of Holmes, watch House.
You simply can't do a movie of Holmes, because the modern audience would hate it.

House reminds me of Holmes only in some of his methods. In personality.... they're almost complete opposites. This new movie seems to take House as a model for Holmes and that's what makes me think it's horrid for a Holmes movie.

Mando Knight
2009-05-29, 01:23 PM
House reminds me of Holmes only in some of his methods. In personality.... they're almost complete opposites. This new movie seems to take House as a model for Holmes and that's what makes me think it's horrid for a Holmes movie.

Arrogant, calculating SoB that's still widely sought after to solve unusual cases? I'm pretty sure that House was cribbing off of Holmes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherlock_Holmes) in that manner as well.

Erts
2009-05-29, 09:09 PM
@bluewind You are kinda right.
But, if Holmes was born in modern day times?
Think about it. Atheism is more accepted now. (Holmes was hinted to be an atheist, now he would be public about it.) Today, you can act like people are dirt, and that they are worthless. You won't be popular, but you still will have a job.
House views everything is pointless, and that only the answer matters. Holmes, born today, would as well.
He would turn out like House. Not exactly, but sorta close.
House is just a little more... angry than Holmes. He has more emotion, and more willingness to break laws to suit his whims.

And yes, Holmes doesn't go out of his way to annoy people in huge ways.

bluewind95
2009-05-29, 09:31 PM
Arrogant, calculating SoB that's still widely sought after to solve unusual cases? I'm pretty sure that House was cribbing off of Holmes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherlock_Holmes) in that manner as well.

Holmes was also very proper and rather polite (albeit arrogantly so), he also was very clean and tidy in his personal appearance (not so with his personal space, but his dress code was remarkably elegant since Watson actually describes it. It's actually described as "cat-like"). He had no interest in women and never, ever presented a theory until he was 100% sure and had all the appropriate evidence available. And that's just off the top of my head as a few of the significant and important differences bewteen Holmes and House. There are a few similarities, but overall? The characters are not one bit the same.


@bluewind You are kinda right.
But, if Holmes was born in modern day times?
Think about it. Atheism is more accepted now. (Holmes was hinted to be an atheist, now he would be public about it.) Today, you can act like people are dirt, and that they are worthless. You won't be popular, but you still will have a job.
House views everything is pointless, and that only the answer matters. Holmes, born today, would as well.
He would turn out like House. Not exactly, but sorta close.
House is just a little more... angry than Holmes. He has more emotion, and more willingness to break laws to suit his whims.

And yes, Holmes doesn't go out of his way to annoy people in huge ways.

Oh, yes. I have no doubt that Holmes would turn out a lot more like House if he had been born in modern times (though I still don't think he'd be a comic person), but the things is... he wasn't. He would be a completely different character if he had. And this movie? It's set in the era when Holmes was created, but still uses completely modern standards. It just suspends my disbelief and also seems like a very poor homage to one of my favourite characters EVER. House is a great homage to the fictional detective in part because he is NOT the detective. Just incorporates a few things from him for the purpose of being a homage. This new modern Holmes? Claims to be the real thing, not even just a nod to the real thing. I have no doubt it could be a pretty good movie.... but it's going to be a bad Holmes movie. I don't want to watch it because I like the character too much and it will be torture to watch the character be horribly mutilated that way. If Dr. House were named Dr. Holmes... I probably wouldn't like that character either. As it is, since it's not mutilating the character, but just nodding at it, I quite like Dr. House. He'd just be a very lousy real Holmes.

Mando Knight
2009-05-29, 09:33 PM
And yes, Holmes doesn't go out of his way to annoy people in huge ways.

He would, if he wasn't able to trap his foes in Xanatos Gambits (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit).

Erts
2009-05-29, 09:37 PM
Kinda doubt the last thing you say.
What if House was born in Holmes time?
He would have been as cold and calculating, just not as angry, because his leg would be fine.
He wouldn't be as rude, because in the Victorian era, politeness was everything. (Holmes still is pretty rude, but he doesn't smash his employers with his cane to solve problems, or tons of other stuff House does to break the rules.)

bluewind95
2009-05-29, 09:53 PM
If House had been born in Holmes time? He would not be the House you know.

Circumstances in a character are of huge importance. House as he is constructed would be a bad Holmes. Also... there really is no way to say his leg would be fine. Perhaps he would have died instead.

Renegade Paladin
2009-05-29, 09:57 PM
No Moriarity.:smallfrown:

A good Holmes movie should have Moriarty.
Why? Moriarty only appeared in one out of the many, many Holmes stories; he only revealed himself for the very endgame. Using him as just another villain of the week cheapens the character.

kpenguin
2009-05-30, 01:11 AM
Why? Moriarty only appeared in one out of the many, many Holmes stories; he only revealed himself for the very endgame. Using him as just another villain of the week cheapens the character.

True, but he was retconned as being behind many of Holmes's cases and, much like the deerstalker cap and the "Elementary, my dear Watson", has become an important part of the Holmes mystique. If this is a standalone movie, not the first in a franchise, I would say Moriarty must be in there.

If this is the first in a franchise, I would at least put some references to Moriarty, perhaps not in name but only as the Napoleon of Crime.

Tiger Duck
2009-05-30, 06:31 AM
This movie looks great, not perticularly Holmes-y but great.

And the Twist Ending will most likely be that Moriarty was behind the whole plot.:smallsmile:

Ichneumon
2009-05-30, 07:05 AM
If this is the first in a franchise, I would at least put some references to Moriarty, perhaps not in name but only as the Napoleon of Crime.

Maybe like how the Joker was referenced in Batman Begins?

Erts
2009-05-30, 09:24 AM
This movie looks great, not perticularly Holmes-y but great.


Pretty much sums it all up.
The thing is, what else could they do?
"Well, here is a story about a Victorean era hero who live in London and tries to uncover secret plots by using his brillance."
Critics would just complain it is too similar to Holmes (even if it is not.)
You forget, few people have read these classics anymore. Sad thing about modern society.

Renegade Paladin
2009-05-30, 10:00 AM
True, but he was retconned as being behind many of Holmes's cases and, much like the deerstalker cap and the "Elementary, my dear Watson", has become an important part of the Holmes mystique. If this is a standalone movie, not the first in a franchise, I would say Moriarty must be in there.

If this is the first in a franchise, I would at least put some references to Moriarty, perhaps not in name but only as the Napoleon of Crime.
The funny thing? Holmes never, not once, uttered the phrase "Elementary, my dear Watson," at any point in any of the stories. :smallamused:

As for complaints about it not being like Holmes... I have to wonder if the people complaining have ever read Doyle's work. Holmes was not at all a reserved logician; he was lethargic when not intellectually stimulated, lazy, impulsive, and slovenly in his personal habits, not to mention addicted to cocaine. (Hey, Robert Downey, Jr. is perfect! :smallbiggrin:) He was also an accomplished boxer, skilled at stick fighting, and a practitioner of bartitsu (which Doyle misspelled as "baritsu" in The Adventure of the Empty House), to say nothing of being handy with a sword. Violence quite often figured into his chosen profession, and in fact Watson was muscle of a sort for him ("Watson, bring your revolver," which, unlike the phrase in the previous paragraph, Holmes did say to Watson on multiple occasions), but in the style of the writing of the era, most violence was implied or briefly mentioned, but not written in detail. Holmes would practice marksmanship by shooting the Queen's initials into the living room wall!

As for Watson, the common protrayal of the jolly bumbler is about as far from Doyle's character as one can get. He was an army doctor and, as I mentioned, was more often than not backup for Holmes, not the comic relief sidekick he's portrayed as in most movies and TV adaptations to date. He was intelligent in his own right, though not practiced in Holmes' methods of deduction, and Holmes trusted him implicitly, even going so far as to entrust him with the safety of Sir Henry Baskerville and to investigate the neighbors of Baskerville Hall while Holmes remained in London. Watson was a counterweight to Holmes' impulsiveness, quite frequently preventing him from doing something absolutely idiotic, and on top of all that was a practicing physician in the later stories! I'm glad there's finally a film in the works that has the possibility of giving the man his due; frankly I identify with Watson more readily than Holmes.

Thufir
2009-05-30, 10:33 AM
The funny thing? Holmes never, not once, uttered the phrase "Elementary, my dear Watson," at any point in any of the stories. :smallamused:

Correction: He never said it in any of the stories written by Arthur Conan Doyle. I believe he does say it in one written by ACD's son.

Renegade Paladin
2009-05-30, 10:56 AM
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/signature/elementary.asp

Erts
2009-05-30, 11:53 AM
He would, if he wasn't able to trap his foes in Xanatos Gambits (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit).

He wouldn't drug Watson to prove that Watson is lieing to him.

kpenguin
2009-05-30, 12:10 PM
The funny thing? Holmes never, not once, uttered the phrase "Elementary, my dear Watson," at any point in any of the stories. :smallamused:

Which was the point I was trying to make. Holmes obviously didn't wear a deerstalker cap everywhere, either. He was a snappy dresser, after all.

The point is that although these things were not part of the original stories, they have become part of the greater Holmes myth. Same with Moriarty.

Renegade Paladin
2009-05-30, 01:00 PM
Actually, one of Holmes' hats may well have been a deerstalker; at the very least, at least once Watson described the hat Holmes put on as having ear flaps. I'm not sure what story that's in; it's somewhere in the first half of The Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes, which I just happen to have started reading yesterday.

SmartAlec
2009-05-30, 01:11 PM
Actually, one of Holmes' hats may well have been a deerstalker; at the very least, at least once Watson described the hat Holmes put on as having ear flaps.

It's described as an 'ear-flapped travelling-cap' in the 4th paragraph of Silver Blaze.

Addendum: Wikipaedia puts it well.

'The most famous wearer of this kind of hat is the fictional character Sherlock Holmes who is popularly depicted favoring this style of hat. However, in Arthur Conan Doyle's stories Holmes is never actually described as wearing a deerstalker, although in The Adventure Of Silver Blaze, the narrator of the bulk of the stories, Dr. John Watson, describes him at one point as wearing a similar-in-design "ear-flapped travelling cap." The public perception of Holmes as a "deerstalker man" was derived from the original illustrations for the stories by Sidney Paget, Frederic Dorr Steele and others. Later uninformed depictions of Holmes that describe him wearing this hat in the city fail to take into account that the fashion-conscious Holmes would never commit such a sartorial faux pas; the deerstalker is traditionally a rural outdoorsman's cap, not the appropriate headgear for the properly-dressed urban gentleman. Indeed, Paget and the other illustrators who portrayed Holmes in a deerstalker always placed him in the proper setting for such attire, which was to say, traveling cross-country or operating in a rural outdoor setting.'

bluewind95
2009-05-31, 12:27 AM
The funny thing? Holmes never, not once, uttered the phrase "Elementary, my dear Watson," at any point in any of the stories. :smallamused:

As for complaints about it not being like Holmes...

Yes, I actually looked for thta quote all over the place and my first thought was "... Why is that quote even associated with Holmes?"

As for reading it.... there was a point when, if told any two sentences (sometimes one was enough) from ANY Sherlock Holmes story, I could correctly identify which story it was from, which collection it came from and which part of the story it was written in, as well as what said story was about, how it was resolved, etc.

Yeah, I read it :smalltongue: