PDA

View Full Version : TV Show Ideas Based On Movies



Chainsaw Hobbit
2011-10-05, 08:36 PM
After seeing the Star Wars: the Clone Wars TV series (which I think was done reasonably well), I realized there is a huge amount of movies that could have cool spin-off TV shows. I thought it would be fun to make a thread where the Playground shares ideas for animated Movie-inspired TV Shows.

My ideas include ...
Rise of the Matrix. A show about the war between the humans and the machines before the Matrix was established.
Dungeons & Dragons: the Iconic Adventures. Not actually based on the movies, because it is too awesome for that. A show about the iconic characters from the 3.5 Player's Handbook.
Warhammer 40,000: Deathwatch. Only sort of based on the Ultramarines move. A show about the Deathwatch, and their adventures fighting the threats to the Impirium.
The Sherlock Holmes Mysteries. Based on the recent movie, and its upcoming sequel. The name is really self-explanatory.

Traab
2011-10-05, 09:41 PM
I think they have done sherlock holmes tv series before. I know there have been a couple cartoon series at least.

comicshorse
2011-10-05, 09:46 PM
They've done several TV series passed on Sherlock Holmes. In fact the second series of 'Sherlock' a updated version done by Steven Moffat is due on the BBC next year

Weezer
2011-10-05, 09:52 PM
Well we already have a modern Sherlock Holmes series going on, it's British, entitled Sherlock (shocking I know) and incredibly well done. Best, and most faithful, adaptation of the story for visual media I've seen. Only has one season so far, next one airs in the spring.

McStabbington
2011-10-05, 10:18 PM
Alien Nation was originally a movie.

Bearpunch
2011-10-06, 01:17 AM
Terminat- oh wait.

SERENITY! A TV show based on a movie based on a TV Show! Inception?

Avilan the Grey
2011-10-06, 01:25 AM
Men in Black

Blues Brothers

Mass Effect
I know, the movie has not been released yet.

Indiana Jones
I know, it has been done. I want it to be done better.

HFool
2011-10-06, 04:47 AM
Terminat- oh wait.

SERENITY! A TV show based on a movie based on a TV Show! Inception?

That would be a three episode miniseries where in each part a dream ends at the end and another begins until the protagonists (or protagonists) finally just wake up.

Dr.Epic
2011-10-06, 04:54 AM
After seeing the Star Wars: the Clone Wars TV series (which I think was done reasonably well)

Alright, I really hate to derail this thread, but I don't get the love for this show. I will admit, I've never seen a complete episode, but based on what I've seen/know about it, I don't get the love for it. I will be fair and list why I don't see the appear in a rational way and not just flame it, and if people what to debate me about this farther, it might be best to create a separate thread to avoid the whole thread derailment:

-We know how it ends: let's face it, this is a prequel to a prequel. It comes before Revenge of the Sith and we know who is gonna live. Know, I know any prequel has the flaw we know who will make it out alive, but usually there are enough new characters we ignore this because we only know there are maybe one or two characters that will make it out alive. Yeah, in the prequels we knew Anakin, Ben, Yoda, and maybe one or two other characters would be fine, but the prequels introduced a ton of characters we never saw before. The problem with the Clone Wars is it focuses on characters/antagonists we see die. I once caught a lightsaber fight on this show between Count Dooku and there was zero tension because I know how both of these characters die, and it's not here.

-I don't see the point: This one may be a little more abstract to explain and probably more personal, but I don't see the point of the series. The prequels are all wrapped up. I don't see the point to expand on them. I guess some people do since this is the Clone Wars, that one thing mentioned once in the original series that I guess have to be a big deal, but we already had a series based on the Clone Wars. That first animated Clone Wars cartoon done with traditional animation. So what does that make this show then? A remake of show and a prequel to a prequel. Honestly, shouldn't all the important stuff have been said in the first Clone Wars series so I'm still unclear on the point. I'm not saying a Star Wars TV show is a bad idea, but how about something we haven't seen. Like what about the years between episode I and episode II and Anakin was still really young and just begun his training. I'd be cool to have that series with Obi-Wan training young Anakin, kind of like the Animate Batman series with Batman and Robin, but with Jedi and Sith. Batman meets Star Wars, tell me that isn't a great idea.

-The art style: Again, I guess this is a matter of taste, but I don't like the animation style. Personally for some reason I can't quite grasp, I'm against most computer animated TV shows. I'm not sure why. I like computer animated films just fine like How to Train Your Dragon and Pixar films, but I'm not sure why I have the prejudice against these TV shows. Maybe it has to do with the fact traditional hand drawn animated films are fading away from the big screen and TV seems to be the last place they appear and shows like this kind of come off like a metaphoric virus spreading from the big screen to the television. I guess this is just my opinion, but I think the animation in the first Clone Wars series was better. Anyway, it's not just my dislike of this animation in TV shows. It's also I don't like the style of computer animation. The characters are all edge, there aren't that many curves, and most surfaces lack texture. Hair doesn't look like hair, skin doesn't look like skin, etc. Like, I guess in hand drawn animation this is true - surfaces lack a clear texture most of the time - but with this style of animation I kind of expect it.

-Generic flaws with the Prequels: Yeah, I know there's a lot of hate about the prequels, and this might just seem like another generic rant about why they stink, but I see the flaws in them in this show. I caught the first 10 minutes of one show and it seemed to focus on Jar Jar. I've been told most episodes don't feature him, but it wasn't just the episode had Jar Jar. It was the structure of the particular episode. Like, it opened with Jar Jar, C3PO, R2, and Padme landing on some planet. Jar Jar gives some existential speech or something about how he's incompetent, but Padme tries to cheer him up. Then Padme gets captured, and it seemed from there it was up to Jar Jar, our underdog, to save the day. This plot and its execution seemed like something out of a children's cartoon. Like, a children's cartoon for really young kids. The nature of the episode seemed to be pandering to the audience. That and those incompetent battle droids are back. Like, Padme used some trick to get those droids to open her cell and she like escapes. What she said to them was far worse than the whole sick man line. There robots are extremely flawed and I'm tired of seeing them.

So there's my rant in a nutshell. Thoughts/counterarguments?


Men in Black

Yeah, this was actually done. It was an animated series. I only caught a few episodes, and I don't remember them too well. I don't think they were bad, but then again I don't remember them too well. I do think they captured what was great about the original film though.

Kato
2011-10-06, 05:53 AM
Yeah, [Men in Black] was actually done. It was an animated series. I only caught a few episodes, and I don't remember them too well. I don't think they were bad, but then again I don't remember them too well. I do think they captured what was great about the original film though.

Yeah, was just going to answer that. It was decent I guess but nothing special. That said, I also thin the movies are more decent than anything else, except for having Smith and Jones in them.


I think they should make a series of... I have no idea. Really, I can't think of any movie I'd love to see a series of... at least not any good ones I can recall.

Aotrs Commander
2011-10-06, 09:53 AM
Alright, I really hate to derail this thread, but I don't get the love for this show. I will admit, I've never seen a complete episode, but based on what I've seen/know about it, I don't get the love for it. I will be fair and list why I don't see the appear in a rational way and not just flame it, and if people what to debate me about this farther, it might be best to create a separate thread to avoid the whole thread derailment:

Response:


-We know how it ends: let's face it, this is a prequel to a prequel. It comes before Revenge of the Sith and we know who is gonna live. Know, I know any prequel has the flaw we know who will make it out alive, but usually there are enough new characters we ignore this because we only know there are maybe one or two characters that will make it out alive. Yeah, in the prequels we knew Anakin, Ben, Yoda, and maybe one or two other characters would be fine, but the prequels introduced a ton of characters we never saw before. The problem with the Clone Wars is it focuses on characters/antagonists we see die. I once caught a lightsaber fight on this show between Count Dooku and there was zero tension because I know how both of these characters die, and it's not here.

What's you point? You can be certain that no character is going to die in a great deal of things (virtually any prequel of any stripe; comics, waaay too many cartoons to note and most TV series come to that, considering that, season closers aside, you an be reasonably sure the protagonists are going to to survive until next week.) It's not the end distination that matters; it's the journey that's interesting.

Character death (in possibility or actuality) also is not an automatic sign of good writing; more often than not these days, it's quite the opposite; lazy and wasteful in a lot of media, especially comics.


-I don't see the point: This one may be a little more abstract to explain and probably more personal, but I don't see the point of the series. The prequels are all wrapped up. I don't see the point to expand on them. I guess some people do since this is the Clone Wars, that one thing mentioned once in the original series that I guess have to be a big deal, but we already had a series based on the Clone Wars. That first animated Clone Wars cartoon done with traditional animation. So what does that make this show then? A remake of show and a prequel to a prequel. Honestly, shouldn't all the important stuff have been said in the first Clone Wars series so I'm still unclear on the point. I'm not saying a Star Wars TV show is a bad idea, but how about something we haven't seen. Like what about the years between episode I and episode II and Anakin was still really young and just begun his training. I'd be cool to have that series with Obi-Wan training young Anakin, kind of like the Animate Batman series with Batman and Robin, but with Jedi and Sith. Batman meets Star Wars, tell me that isn't a great idea.

I, on the other don't see the point in not expanding on the Clone Wars, especially since it's mainly an action-based show about a dirty great sci-fi war. (It has starship battles, for crying out loud, that alone justifies it's existance.) There is plenty of room for telling tales in preportedly the largest single conflict in galactic history.

Though if you're not interested in the Expanded Universe in general, then Clone Wars won't change your mind.

It has lost of pretty laser fights, pretty lightsabre fights and pretty vehicle fights. And frankly, that is a good enough basis for me to want to watch it. Not everything has to be about people, sometimes, the events that are being done by people are enough.



The episodes with Obi-Wan and Anakin are usually pretty good, because of the good-natured banter between them (often with Asokha bringing more entertainment to the mix).

Batman meets Star Wars is not a great idea. (I don't find Batman - Adam West aside - a particularly interesting character.)

Actually come to that, you DO have that mentor/student training dynamic, only it's Anakin training HIS padawan (Asokha), and it's against the background of the war. Asokha, whose fate we don't know and who could be one of the more tragic characters (as it's quite possible she will end up being killed by Anakin, her own master and the person she looks up to the most; how's that for serious drama, huh?)


-Generic flaws with the Prequels: Yeah, I know there's a lot of hate about the prequels, and this might just seem like another generic rant about why they stink, but I see the flaws in them in this show. I caught the first 10 minutes of one show and it seemed to focus on Jar Jar. I've been told most episodes don't feature him, but it wasn't just the episode had Jar Jar. It was the structure of the particular episode. Like, it opened with Jar Jar, C3PO, R2, and Padme landing on some planet. Jar Jar gives some existential speech or something about how he's incompetent, but Padme tries to cheer him up. Then Padme gets captured, and it seemed from there it was up to Jar Jar, our underdog, to save the day. This plot and its execution seemed like something out of a children's cartoon. Like, a children's cartoon for really young kids. The nature of the episode seemed to be pandering to the audience. That and those incompetent battle droids are back. Like, Padme used some trick to get those droids to open her cell and she like escapes. What she said to them was far worse than the whole sick man line. There robots are extremely flawed and I'm tired of seeing them.

You caught a sucky episode (anything with JarJar in automatically counts as a sucky episode, and I recall that one. It wasn't very good; in fact I'd say it was among the worst. This is why you should always try (to watch at least partially) at least two episodes of anything, because you might catch a bad one.) They aren't all gold. There are far better episodes, however (anything with starship battles or Asokha Tano, for a kick off.)

And it IS a children's cartoon, at the end of the day, the same as Avatar and My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic was/is. But unlike the former, especially, Clone Wars also doesn't shrink from killing people (and not always just getting shot, either). War kills people, and Clone Wars doesn't actually shy away from this, just like the movies it's based on didn't. That also gets it a gold star in my book.

Also, Battle Droid are cool and I find them extremely funny, which again, makes their existance worthwhile.

Derthric
2011-10-06, 10:31 AM
I've got a pretty random one here but Appaloosa: the Chronicles of Virgil Cole.

The movie is one of my favorites of recent memory (and not just for the tom petty song over the end credits). But it was gritty and subtle like a classic western. However the whole time we are watching we see everyone acknowledge Virgil (Ed Harris) as this super Lawman-for-hire. I think it would be interesting to see him and Everett wandering the High Desert dispensing justice one bullet at a time.

Mr.Silver
2011-10-07, 04:47 AM
Wouldn't it be a better idea to have some, I dunno, original TV shows that aren't based on something else?




Rise of the Matrix. A show about the war between the humans and the machines before the Matrix was established.
Pretty sure the Animatrix already did that one.




Dungeons & Dragons: the Iconic Adventures. Not actually based on the movies, because it is too awesome for that. A show about the iconic characters from the 3.5 Player's Handbook.
Didn't we already have a Dungeons and Dragons TV series a few decades back?

Regardless, even ignoring the possibility that any D&D adaptation done these days would be 4th edition based, it'd still probably suck. As D&D is basically made out of fantasy cliche (and may well be responsible for creating many such cliches) an adaptation of such is very likely to end-up as 'Generic Fantasy Quest number 702'. Especially if said story is based around the 'iconic adventures' since these are almost uniformly various dungeon crawls based around characters who have no real personal motivation in doing them.



Warhammer 40,000: Deathwatch. Only sort of based on the Ultramarines move. A show about the Deathwatch, and their adventures fighting the threats to the Impirium.
Again, unlikely to be particularly good. 40k's 'everyone is a bad guy' styles work fine for tabletop games, but as a concept for an actual story it's liable to get boring.






Blues Brothers
They started off as characters on a TV show anyway. More to the point, there is quite literally nothing a TV show could add to the film. The plot is nicely wrapped up at the end so there's nowhere that a show could go other than recycling the 'get the band back together' story, which would be a retread of the first film minus the budget and most of the talent (several of whom are dead). It's also worth noting that the music scene the original film celebrated was faded quite severely in the last few decades.
So no, this shouldn't ever happen. Ever.



Mass Effect
I know, the movie has not been released yet.
Can we at least wait for the film to fail horribly before we start thinking of new ways to wreck things? :smalltongue:

Avilan the Grey
2011-10-07, 05:25 AM
Can we at least wait for the film to fail horribly before we start thinking of new ways to wreck things? :smalltongue:

Wrecking things is what Shep does best.
Not as stylishly as Garrus, of course, but with more sex appeal.

KingofMadCows
2011-10-07, 05:38 AM
Scanners

Minority Report

Blade Runner

Alien

Mr.Silver
2011-10-07, 07:44 AM
Wrecking things is what Shep does best.
Not as stylishly as Garrus, of course, but with more sex appeal.

And with rather less obscene amounts of collateral damage than Zaeed :smalltongue:

bluewind95
2011-10-07, 08:08 AM
The Sherlock Holmes Mysteries. Based on the recent movie, and its upcoming sequel. The name is really self-explanatory.

Noo! Not that movie! Not that horrible, disgusting, mockery-of-Holmes movie!

Personally, I'd like to see a new version of Planet of the Apes TV series.

Avilan the Grey
2011-10-07, 08:47 AM
Noo! Not that movie! Not that horrible, disgusting, mockery-of-Holmes movie!

That movie is the best version of Sherlock I have ever seen, especially since it is much more true to the books than any other I have heard of.

Chainsaw Hobbit
2011-10-07, 11:00 AM
Noo! Not that movie! Not that horrible, disgusting, mockery-of-Holmes movie!
What are you talking about? That was amazing.


Personally, I'd like to see a new version of Planet of the Apes TV series.
Yes. Certainly. I can't believe I forgot about that.

Axolotl
2011-10-07, 07:48 PM
Didn't we already have a Dungeons and Dragons TV series a few decades back?

Regardless, even ignoring the possibility that any D&D adaptation done these days would be 4th edition based, it'd still probably suck. As D&D is basically made out of fantasy cliche (and may well be responsible for creating many such cliches) an adaptation of such is very likely to end-up as 'Generic Fantasy Quest number 702'. Especially if said story is based around the 'iconic adventures' since these are almost uniformly various dungeon crawls based around characters who have no real personal motivation in doing them.That's only really a problem if you stick with the implied setting or Forgotten Realms, which are both admittedly hyper-generic (and really pretty much are the definition of generic fantasy). However if they used their other setting I'm sure it could be fairly fresh. I won't go into how awesom a Planescape series could be but look at say Eberron, a popular setting that's new but still very much DnD. A series using Eberron could use the politics and weirdness of the setting for ungeneric plots while also homaging classic pulp adventure. Also the existence of robots and magic airships creates a refreshing aesthetic that would mitigate any criticisms that it's generic.

On Topic:
My first thought was Taxi Driver: The Series! but that's a terrible idea.

Scott Pilgrim was something that would probably work better as a TV show than a film since then it has more time to pile on the refrences and build the characters.

George Romero's zombie films could work but they seem to be making that with the Walking Dead (a series that sadly came out just as I lost all interest in zombies).

City of Lost Children and The Fifth Element are both films where I'd watch a TV show that used their settings.

bluewind95
2011-10-07, 10:42 PM
That movie is the best version of Sherlock I have ever seen, especially since it is much more true to the books than any other I have heard of.


What are you talking about? That was amazing.


No, no it wasn't. Holmes is not at all like House. Nor did he ever act in the childish manner of "OMG MUST PRANK TO MAKE MY BESTIE BREAK UP WITH HIS GIRLFRIEND!". Nor was he ever in love with Irene Adler. He was COMPLETELY asexual and a HUGE misogynist. He was also cat-like in his care of his personal appearance, not that... that... THING that always looked like he just got up from bed. Irene Adler was also not a criminal, MUCH LESS working for Moriarty. Oh, by the way? She was happily married at the end of that adventure. Sherlock Holmes himself was the witness (in a disguise) in that wedding. No, no. EVERYTHING was wrong about that portrayal of Holmes. It's like they took House and Wilson and just changed their names and their jobs. It was painful to see.

If you wish to see a portrayal that's actually true to the books and not House'd, then watch the old miniseries called The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes. THAT is a good portrayal of Holmes. Not this mockery of a portrayal that's more House than Holmes. (No. Despite some similarities, they are NOT the same in personality. AT. ALL.)

Weezer
2011-10-07, 10:58 PM
No, no it wasn't. Holmes is not at all like House. Nor did he ever act in the childish manner of "OMG MUST PRANK TO MAKE MY BESTIE BREAK UP WITH HIS GIRLFRIEND!". Nor was he ever in love with Irene Adler. He was COMPLETELY asexual and a HUGE misogynist. He was also cat-like in his care of his personal appearance, not that... that... THING that always looked like he just got up from bed. Irene Adler was also not a criminal, MUCH LESS working for Moriarty. Oh, by the way? She was happily married at the end of that adventure. Sherlock Holmes himself was the witness (in a disguise) in that wedding. No, no. EVERYTHING was wrong about that portrayal of Holmes. It's like they took House and Wilson and just changed their names and their jobs. It was painful to see.

If you wish to see a portrayal that's actually true to the books and not House'd, then watch the old miniseries called The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes. THAT is a good portrayal of Holmes. Not this mockery of a portrayal that's more House than Holmes. (No. Despite some similarities, they are NOT the same in personality. AT. ALL.)

All that I can say is that I agree with this post 100%. It was a horrific adaptation of Holmes which abandoned everything good about the source material. It doesn't even hide that it's abandoning the source, there is almost nothing in common between actual Holmes and RDJ Holmes.

bluewind95
2011-10-07, 11:04 PM
All that I can say is that I agree with this post 100%. It was a horrific adaptation of Holmes which abandoned everything good about the source material. It doesn't even hide that it's abandoning the source, there is almost nothing in common between actual Holmes and RDJ Holmes.
Someone who understands! I... I love you.

Ravens_cry
2011-10-07, 11:09 PM
Considering they made a manga series beforehand, I would say there is enough stories left in the Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind universe to warrant an anime series.

Weezer
2011-10-07, 11:09 PM
Someone who understands! I... I love you.

Love you too...? :smalltongue:
Have you by any chance watched the BBC series Sherlock? I find it an excellent modern update, captures Holmes and Watson really well.

bluewind95
2011-10-07, 11:20 PM
Love you too...? :smalltongue:
Have you by any chance watched the BBC series Sherlock? I find it an excellent modern update, captures Holmes and Watson really well.

Sadly, I don't think we get it here. But I did hear THAT one actually captured the essence... despite changing so much fluff because it's a modern adaptation. You know... unlike that awful movie.

Avilan the Grey
2011-10-08, 02:48 AM
No, no it wasn't. Holmes is not at all like House. Nor did he ever act in the childish manner of "OMG MUST PRANK TO MAKE MY BESTIE BREAK UP WITH HIS GIRLFRIEND!". Nor was he ever in love with Irene Adler. He was COMPLETELY asexual and a HUGE misogynist. He was also cat-like in his care of his personal appearance, not that... that... THING that always looked like he just got up from bed. Irene Adler was also not a criminal, MUCH LESS working for Moriarty. Oh, by the way? She was happily married at the end of that adventure. Sherlock Holmes himself was the witness (in a disguise) in that wedding. No, no. EVERYTHING was wrong about that portrayal of Holmes. It's like they took House and Wilson and just changed their names and their jobs. It was painful to see.

If you wish to see a portrayal that's actually true to the books and not House'd, then watch the old miniseries called The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes. THAT is a good portrayal of Holmes. Not this mockery of a portrayal that's more House than Holmes. (No. Despite some similarities, they are NOT the same in personality. AT. ALL.)

It all depends on what you are bugged by.
You don't care for those things you listed, but for me I am ecstatic to find one (1) depiction of Holmes where he is not WAY too old (the series you listed got Holmes' appearance COMPLETELY wrong, as usual. He should be about 30 years younger (as should Watson)). That is my dead horse I keep beating.

This is what the movie did right (Well Holmes is still played by an actor way too old; if this is pre-Moriarty, Holmes and Watson should both be what? 25 years old or so? They also finally got his martial arts skills right. He is a very accomplished fighter. Not an old stuffy guy.

The ONLY TV series that comes close to depict him right is the modern remake, "Sherlock".

bluewind95
2011-10-08, 09:19 AM
It all depends on what you are bugged by.
You don't care for those things you listed, but for me I am ecstatic to find one (1) depiction of Holmes where he is not WAY too old (the series you listed got Holmes' appearance COMPLETELY wrong, as usual. He should be about 30 years younger (as should Watson)). That is my dead horse I keep beating.

This is what the movie did right (Well Holmes is still played by an actor way too old; if this is pre-Moriarty, Holmes and Watson should both be what? 25 years old or so? They also finally got his martial arts skills right. He is a very accomplished fighter. Not an old stuffy guy.

The ONLY TV series that comes close to depict him right is the modern remake, "Sherlock".

The actor may be old, but, as you said, so was this "new" Holmes. In looks, dress and whatnot, the series I mentioned is WAY better than the movie. It's kind of like those series where teenagers are played by adults. Also, yes, he was actually shown fighting here. Which would be good, EXCEPT they lost the essence of the character. What use is showcasing one of his skills if you changed the entire personality so that you can barely call them the same character anymore?

Heck, the Watson in that movie made a MUCH better Holmes than RDJ did. RDJ just mixed Tony Stark with Dr. House (two characters that are very, very removed in personality from Sherlock Holmes, despite House having some characteristics similar to Holmes in a kind of tribute) and went with that. That loses the core of the character. Holmes is still Holmes even if he doesn't fight. In fact, he rarely really needed his abilities to do so in the original stories.


I cannot speak for the modern remake, having not watched it. I hear that they actually did get the essence right despite changing a lot of the outer characteristics for a modern adaptation. I also heard the creators were very displeased with the new movie precisely because it got the essence all wrong.

Eldan
2011-10-08, 09:32 AM
Inception could make a pretty cool series. Not Cobb and his people. Just the technology in general.

Weezer
2011-10-08, 10:27 AM
Sadly, I don't think we get it here. But I did hear THAT one actually captured the essence... despite changing so much fluff because it's a modern adaptation. You know... unlike that awful movie.

I don't know where here is for you, but if you're in the US/Canada, it's on Netflix for streaming.



Inception could make a pretty cool series. Not Cobb and his people. Just the technology in general.

One thing that felt missing from Inception was any sense of how the dream technology effected life in general. I know they didn't have near enough time to explore that, but it would be fascinating to have a TV series that did so. There are just so many places they could go with that basic premise.

bluewind95
2011-10-08, 10:47 AM
I don't know where here is for you, but if you're in the US/Canada, it's on Netflix for streaming.


Nope. I don't. Mexico.

Weezer
2011-10-08, 10:54 AM
Ahh, yes that would make things a bit more difficult.

Eldan
2011-10-08, 01:08 PM
I don't know where here is for you, but if you're in the US/Canada, it's on Netflix for streaming.

One thing that felt missing from Inception was any sense of how the dream technology effected life in general. I know they didn't have near enough time to explore that, but it would be fascinating to have a TV series that did so. There are just so many places they could go with that basic premise.

Exactly. Psychotherapy. Solving crimes. Trying to communicate with coma patients, mutes and so on.

It has a million applications. But I think the mood of the movie would have suffered if it was too well explained.

Ravens_cry
2011-10-08, 02:03 PM
Just a little. The book of 2001: A Space Oddyssy explained what was happening in more detail and, while still very enjoyable, had a very different feel than the movie.
On the other hand, not explaining things too long, and you get the X-Files effect, also known as the Lost-effect. Put off resolution for long enough and people simply lose interest.
Movies that would make great television?
Master and Commander: Far Side of the World. Yes, I know it was a series of books first, that just proves it. I would love to watch that if well done.
Porco Rosso had more stories to tell, I just know it.

Sotharsyl
2011-10-08, 02:42 PM
Didn't we already have a Dungeons and Dragons TV series a few decades back?

Regardless, even ignoring the possibility that any D&D adaptation done these days would be 4th edition based, it'd still probably suck. As D&D is basically made out of fantasy cliche (and may well be responsible for creating many such cliches) an adaptation of such is very likely to end-up as 'Generic Fantasy Quest number 702'. Especially if said story is based around the 'iconic adventures' since these are almost uniformly various dungeon crawls based around characters who have no real personal motivation in doing them.



The fact that it's been done decades ago,is actually more of a incentive let's be honest now a days we can be more true to the DnD game i.e the ranger's bow has real arrows he fires them at things and those things die,the ranger may or may not then loot their corpses.
Plus didn't we reboot the Hulk after 6 months or something just recently,decades seems like quite a valid series-reboot period.

Yes DnD is a big cliche and yes DnD did built a lot of the cliches,but hear me out whenever someone wants to snark at movie Gandalf they'll say something to the tune of Dumbledore wannabe even though they know better and a lot of people honestly do not know better.
This situation was fairly predictable,should this have stopped Peter Jackson from going ahead with the Lotr trilogy?
Sometimes you just have to forge ahead.

Also I know that 4e is seen as the devil by some,but it would work nice for a tv show producers could do the char development and merely animating the flavor text of the powers will provide nice visuals,plus everybody will be balanced.

And I hope that maybe they make a bold choice and not go with generic human fighter as party leader I would settle for generic human warlord,but call him a warlord captain something,or generic human cleric.

Ravens_cry
2011-10-08, 02:57 PM
I think one of the settings would be more interesting than just generic D&D.
Eberron would be especially awesome. Planescape and Spelljammer, heck, even together, would also make for much greatness.

Weezer
2011-10-08, 03:14 PM
I think one of the settings would be more interesting than just generic D&D.
Eberron would be especially awesome. Planescape and Spelljammer, heck, even together, would also make for much greatness.

I'd like to see someone trying to pitch Spelljammer to a studio executive. "It's fantasy, but in space, with empires of tentacled monsters flying around in massive nautilus and militaristic hippo men."

Though not quite as much fun as Dark Sun, "What do you mean cannibalistic hobbits?!"

Ravens_cry
2011-10-08, 03:17 PM
I'd like to see someone trying to pitch Spelljammer to a studio executive. "It's fantasy, but in space, with empires of tentacled monsters flying around in massive nautilus and militaristic hippo men."

And it still sounds amazing.


Though not quite as much fun as Dark Sun, "What do you mean cannibalistic hobbits?!"
"Halflings sir, halflings. Tolkiens estate won't allow Hobbits."

Weezer
2011-10-08, 03:19 PM
Oh, and don't forget the giant space hamsters, and their close cousin, the miniature giant space hamster.


And it still sounds amazing.


I certainly think so too.

Sotharsyl
2011-10-09, 12:42 PM
I'd like to see someone trying to pitch Spelljammer to a studio executive. "It's fantasy, but in space, with empires of tentacled monsters flying around in massive nautilus and militaristic hippo men."

Though not quite as much fun as Dark Sun, "What do you mean cannibalistic hobbits?!"

Honestly and I know I'm being a spoilsport but that's just too many things thrown together,it would be like that episode of Voyager where they reached infinity speed and evolved into iguana's but you know the whole show would be that.

Dark Sun I could see just never mention the word cannibals in relation with the halflings on screen and you're good.

Ravens_cry
2011-10-09, 12:51 PM
Well, what is Star Wars, but "A kid teams up with a effeminate gold robot and a blue and white on that only speaks in beeps and boops. He saves the day because he has psychic powers, blowing up a space station the size of a moon. With him is a princess from a from planet that was blown up by said moon, a bounty hunter and big furry thing only the bounty hunter can understand.
The villain sounds like stereotypical Jamaican guy with asthma."

Mr.Silver
2011-10-09, 01:48 PM
Yes DnD is a big cliche and yes DnD did built a lot of the cliches,but hear me out whenever someone wants to snark at movie Gandalf they'll say something to the tune of Dumbledore wannabe even though they know better and a lot of people honestly do not know better.
This situation was fairly predictable,should this have stopped Peter Jackson from going ahead with the Lotr trilogy?
The thing is though is that LOTR is an adaptation of an existing story where the narrative is entwined with a deeplu realised world. 'Default' D&D settings are game tools, and as such are designed primarily to allow players to have fun stomping through dungeons and killing bad guys. It's a similar problem as wtih a lot of videogame adaptations: the story isn't there to build a narrative so much as to provide some context for the player's actions, frequently with little thought given as to consistant world-building (particularly in regards to how it meshes with game mechanics). Note: I'm not saying you can't tell good stories or make interesting worlds with D&D, just that in default D&D this is going to be a limiting factor, as it's meant to be just a generic fantasy world.


More specific settings, such as Dark Sun and/or Planescape I could see being good, or at least interesting though. No argument there.



Also I know that 4e is seen as the devil by some,but it would work nice for a tv show producers could do the char development and merely animating the flavor text of the powers will provide nice visuals,plus everybody will be balanced.
I'm not concerned with the 3rd ed vs 4th ed argument. I merely brought it up because you specifically mentioned the 3.5 edition characters. I personally don't think it the system would make things better or worse either way, if it even had any real effect at all.



The villain sounds like stereotypical Jamaican guy with asthma.
Pretty sure James Earl Jones' voice isn't associated with the steroetypical Jamaican. Certainly not in any stereotypical depictions I've seen :smalltongue:

Sotharsyl
2011-10-09, 01:51 PM
I think you are mistaken good sir or madame my first post in the thread was the one I quoted,and the only edition I discussed was 4e.

Mr.Silver
2011-10-09, 01:53 PM
I think you are mistaken good sir or madame my first post in the thread was the one I quoted,and the only edition I discussed was 4e.

Sorry, got your post mixed up with Twilight Muse's post, who did specifically mention 3.5 edition. That'll teach me to pay more attention to user names :smallredface:

Ravens_cry
2011-10-09, 02:46 PM
Pretty sure James Earl Jones' voice isn't associated with the steroetypical Jamaican. Certainly not in any stereotypical depictions I've seen :smalltongue:

Not now, no. But at least the version I watched on television, when he was much, much younger, he did to me at least.

Elrik
2011-10-10, 12:20 AM
Don't know if this has been posted, but Kung Fu Panda is getting a TV Show on Nickelodeon.

I don't know if I should be happy one of my favorite (and one of the only dreamworks movies I like) dreamworks movies is coming to TV, or sad because Jack Black isn't coming back to voice Po.

I'm actually a little optimistic, the TV adaption of Madagascar (starring the penguins) was awesome, and I hated Madagascar. Maybe they'll do the same with a movie I actually liked.

H Birchgrove
2011-10-10, 10:21 AM
It all depends on what you are bugged by.
You don't care for those things you listed, but for me I am ecstatic to find one (1) depiction of Holmes where he is not WAY too old (the series you listed got Holmes' appearance COMPLETELY wrong, as usual. He should be about 30 years younger (as should Watson)). That is my dead horse I keep beating.

This is what the movie did right (Well Holmes is still played by an actor way too old; if this is pre-Moriarty, Holmes and Watson should both be what? 25 years old or so? They also finally got his martial arts skills right. He is a very accomplished fighter. Not an old stuffy guy.

The ONLY TV series that comes close to depict him right is the modern remake, "Sherlock".

Jeremy Brett's Holmes could fight, and like a proper gentleman, too. (http://youtu.be/hdd3_qx6Eqw)

zyphyr
2011-10-10, 06:07 PM
Jeremy Brett's Holmes could fight, and like a proper gentleman, too. (http://youtu.be/hdd3_qx6Eqw)

Of course, Book Holmes wasn't a gentlemanly 'Marquis of Queensbury' style fighter. He was a practitioner of Baritsu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartitsu), a much more practical/useful style.

TheEmerged
2011-10-10, 06:27 PM
RE: D&D TV Show. This was a writing project I & some friends played with a few years back. Here's a point of interest.

You'd either have to make the characters native to the world, or you'd have to explain why these characters have chosen to stay in the "game" world. Why? One of the problems with the cartoon (and the producer himself acknowledged this) is that, like Gilligan's Island, it means the characters have to repeatedly fail to get back home. I chose the second one, because I felt it gave me a hook for the six characters. It would also allow you to "cabbagehead" the world to the audience realistically, since the audience and the characters are finding these things out at the same time. Everyone else on the project chose option 1.

HFool
2011-10-10, 09:24 PM
RE: D&D TV Show. This was a writing project I & some friends played with a few years back. Here's a point of interest.

You'd either have to make the characters native to the world, or you'd have to explain why these characters have chosen to stay in the "game" world. Why? One of the problems with the cartoon (and the producer himself acknowledged this) is that, like Gilligan's Island, it means the characters have to repeatedly fail to get back home. I chose the second one, because I felt it gave me a hook for the six characters. It would also allow you to "cabbagehead" the world to the audience realistically, since the audience and the characters are finding these things out at the same time. Everyone else on the project chose option 1.

So why would they stay?

Weezer
2011-10-10, 09:30 PM
So why would they stay?

Because they are now wizards. End of story.

autumn1971
2011-10-10, 11:33 PM
The only way a Blues Brothers TV show would work would be a spin-off.
I want to see Aretha Franklin and Matt "Guitar" Murphy's shenanagins running a diner on the south side of Chicago with "Blue" Lou Marini as the short-order cook.
Occasionally, of course, elderly blues and jazz legends would stop in for hi-jinks. (That last part would make a whole hell of a lot more sense in this milieu than it ever did on Cosby.)

HFool
2011-10-11, 01:30 AM
Because they are now wizards. End of story.

What about fighter guys? You know, paladins and stuff?

Xondoure
2011-10-11, 01:36 AM
Don't know if this has been posted, but Kung Fu Panda is getting a TV Show on Nickelodeon.

I don't know if I should be happy one of my favorite (and one of the only dreamworks movies I like) dreamworks movies is coming to TV, or sad because Jack Black isn't coming back to voice Po.

I'm actually a little optimistic, the TV adaption of Madagascar (starring the penguins) was awesome, and I hated Madagascar. Maybe they'll do the same with a movie I actually liked.

No Jack Black? Yeah I won't be watching it. I assume that means no Angelina, Jackie Chan, or any of the other incredibly talented people in those films.

Weezer
2011-10-11, 09:48 AM
What about fighter guys? You know, paladins and stuff?

Then you'd just need to rely on the idea that it's just about every geeks wet dream to go on quests to fight some ancient evil. They'd probably get disillusioned with that stance eventually, but by then they could become so invested in defeating evil that they stay for that reason. Really it's not that hard to justify people wanting to stay in a fantasy world.

Ravens_cry
2011-10-11, 12:22 PM
Personally, I agree with your classmates. Just tell stories of that settings, with characters and situations that make sense for it. No one thought it would be a good idea for some ordinary human to be transported to Middle Earth to help the Fellowship, no one but a fan fiction writer anyway.
The various D&D settings abound with intriguing characters and situations, adding a group of modern humans to the mix just sounds like a clumsy excuse for exposition rather then presenting the world through showing it in action.

Chainsaw Hobbit
2011-10-11, 01:59 PM
What about a Drizzt TV show? There is certainly enough content for at least a couple of seasons. It could have nice long plot arcs, and Hugh Jackman could be Zaknafien.

Athaniar
2011-10-11, 02:27 PM
I'd watch it, definitely. Who'd play the main characters?

Dr.Epic
2011-10-11, 04:19 PM
Rock 'em Sock 'em Robots Real Steel:
Haven't seen the film, but it looks so campy and action packed, how can it not be entertaining? Wouldn't you love to see a half-hour of robots fighting?

Cowboys and Aliens:
Loved the film and would like to see a series based on a gritty western with aliens.

Chainsaw Hobbit
2011-10-11, 05:05 PM
I'd watch it, definitely. Who'd play the main characters?

Andrew Garfield could be Drizzt, Hugh Jackman could be Zaknafien, Falicia Day could be Vierna.

Scarlet Knight
2011-10-11, 05:35 PM
Of course, Book Holmes wasn't a gentlemanly 'Marquis of Queensbury' style fighter. He was a practitioner of Baritsu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartitsu), a much more practical/useful style.

Perhaps he found a teacher in Sumatra...

TheEmerged
2011-10-11, 05:48 PM
Raven's Cry. It wasn't for a class. My friends and I may be older than you think :smallredface: The original idea came out as updating the D&D Cartoon, and I took the challenge more literally than they did.


So why would they stay?

Let's keep in mind the *characters* stayed, not the classes.

Cleric: spoilered for crossing on a board rule, even though it's really, really obvious...
because God told him to. "I have plans for changing this world, Dave. I need you here."

Wizard: Weezer called it, because she's a wizard now :smallcool:

Fighter: because she's fed up with the 'real' world. She sees all these problems you could fix if you'd just bust the right people in the mouth (so to speak), but knows if she did that she'd be the one punished for it. Here, she's at least allowed to try it.

Rogue: because it represents a 'reset' button on her life, which she feels she's blown in the 'real' world. This is a chance to start over in a world where nobody cares who she used to be.

Warlord: because he quickly finds a sense of purpose, a connection to this world he's always found lacking in the 'real' one. Also, the fact that he's a fire acid-breathing dragon(born) now...

Monk: this character is the D&D playing geek of the bunch, so he's the one Weezer's second explanation applies to. He can do *good* here, instead of having to be a wage slave.

Dr.Epic
2011-10-11, 11:00 PM
The Nightmare Before Christmas:
I'd love to see a show based on the everyday stories of Halloween Town. I'm not sure claymation would work as it's a lot of work, but the animation should be something stylized and perhaps a little abstract.

Sotharsyl
2011-10-14, 02:41 PM
What about fighter guys? You know, paladins and stuff?

There was FF Tactics 2,the game is pretty old and what I'm going to tell you you'd probably bump into online so from this point on unmarked spoilers:

The most brilliant story move they made was in making all the main characters friends want to stay in the "fantasy" world,their stances being motivated by the RL thusly:

Main Character: Most normal and well adjusted/ in RL wants to drag everyone back because "they're living a illusion".
His brother: in RL stuck in a wheelchair in fantasy land can walk wants to remain.
Sole Girl: in RL they mock her for a harmless but obvious physical peculiarity needless to say it doesn't happen in fantasy land,she wants to stay.
Other Guy: has a deadbeat or abusive dad in RL wants to remain in fantasy land.

So you could have something like this,there are people whose greatest desire is a normal functioning body which fantasy fighters have.

What I kind of want to do is give a gritty reboot to the 80's DnD crew bring them back when they're college aged or young adults,high school aged would be too soon and a bit overplayed:

Diana:Her greatest fear was becoming to old to compete as a gymnast,in RL it's happened already,but in DnD she hasn't come out of her physical prime.

Sheila:I want to say that she's fighting kleptomania,but that would be just too much angst so no idea.

Presto: A scientist/engineer you could go two ways with they guy:
a) he still has the hat whenever he's alone he tries to dismantle it to learn it's secrets and everybody watches him not trusting him to not destroy their most potent weapon.
b) he is a regular wizard there are no scrolls he has to figure out how : Thenevin+Norton+Maxwell's Equation = Lightning bolt spell on his own.

Eric: No beating around the bush he's a paladin/cleric/divine knight guy a holy warrior who has to lead a crusade against his god's enemies.
Maybe he chooses his own god but he still thinks he's gypped for having to pray/believe/follow the rules of a wacko deity just so he can get powers that come to the others so easily.

Hank: I have no ideeas for this guy,or to be more precise even I know my ideeas for him are stupid.

Bobi: Wildcard we can write into whatever kind of character we need to round out the cast.

Also their mentor is Drizzt,we're not even discussing this :) .

Bruendor_Cavescout
2011-10-14, 02:59 PM
I would have loved to have seen a show based around Samuel Gerard's team of US Marshalls as seen in The Fugitive and US Marshalls. The banter between these characters really felt like the things a group of people that were around each other all day would say. I would have loved to have gotten to know these characters better than we did in the films. How did they manage their private lives with a job so demanding as hunting down fugitives? Who were they before they became US Marshalls? What was their motivation to do this? Coulda been awesome.

H Birchgrove
2011-10-14, 06:10 PM
I just have to mention something I hate with the trailer of the sequel to the 2009 Sherlock Holmes film: Holmes in ugly drag. If Arthur Conan Doyle's Holmes would find the need to cross-dress, he would surely look good, or the very least believable. Even Ernst Stavro Blofeld was better than this. :smallmad:


Of course, Book Holmes wasn't a gentlemanly 'Marquis of Queensbury' style fighter. He was a practitioner of Baritsu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartitsu), a much more practical/useful style.

Actually, "book" Holmes was able in pistol shooting, boxing, fencing, Singlestick (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singlestick)*, the use of a riding crop** as well as "Baritsu", which was introduced retroactively in "The Empty House" in The Return of Sherlock Holmes. That Holmes *could* (which doesn't necessarily means he *did*) defend himself ruthlessly if needed, doesn't mean he was unable to fight as a "proper gentleman" if the situation called for it (for example when defending his honour rather than his life).

It should be noted, perhaps, that the meaning of "gentleman" has become as Flanderized as Dr Watson in the Basil Rathbone & Nigel Bruce films. Gentlemen - and ladies! - were meant to be able defend themselves not only with boxing, jie-jitsu, umbrellas and canes, but also concealed weapons such as cane-swords/swordsticks and even concealed knives and/or daggers; hardly what we consider "gentlemanly" today.

* Mentioned in the first book and novel, A Study in Scarlet.
*" As shown in "The Speckled Band" in The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes.

scienceguy8
2011-10-16, 10:38 PM
What about a television show based on a television show based on a movie based on a book? It could be called "C*S*H", and it could be about the daily exploits, triumphs, and failures of the United States Army's 255th Combat Surgical Hospital in Iraq. You have a couple doctors who oppose the occupation and see their job as saving as many lives as possible, one senior doctor who supports the occupation and sees his job as saving as many American serviceman's lives as possible and who has a tendency to put his foot in his mouth, a senior administrator and fellow surgeon whose actions are guided by his company clerk...

You know what? Bad idea. Remaking M*A*S*H would be difficult and under no circumstances should it be done by simply following the same character formulae.

turkishproverb
2011-10-16, 11:12 PM
No, no it wasn't. Holmes is not at all like House. Nor did he ever act in the childish manner of "OMG MUST PRANK TO MAKE MY BESTIE BREAK UP WITH HIS GIRLFRIEND!". Nor was he ever in love with Irene Adler. He was COMPLETELY asexual and a HUGE misogynist. He was also cat-like in his care of his personal appearance, not that... that... THING that always looked like he just got up from bed. Irene Adler was also not a criminal, MUCH LESS working for Moriarty. Oh, by the way? She was happily married at the end of that adventure. Sherlock Holmes himself was the witness (in a disguise) in that wedding. No, no. EVERYTHING was wrong about that portrayal of Holmes. It's like they took House and Wilson and just changed their names and their jobs. It was painful to see.

If you wish to see a portrayal that's actually true to the books and not House'd, then watch the old miniseries called The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes. THAT is a good portrayal of Holmes. Not this mockery of a portrayal that's more House than Holmes. (No. Despite some similarities, they are NOT the same in personality. AT. ALL.)

I agree in general, but you took it overboard a bit. He wasn't the huge misogynist you make him out to be. Generally he didn't discuss women, aside from pointing out that they were, in the way Watson kept discussing them (IE with somewhat romantic connotations), outside his purview and area of interest. He also made this reason quite clear, discussing how in his opinion "the most winning woman I ever knew was hanged for poisoning three little children for their insurance-money"

In other words, women are of interest to him in the same way cases are. Not exactly Misogynist.

Mind you, I will give credit where it is do. Seeing someone ditch the cap, and remind us of Holmes's martial prowess, was nice. As was the "eye medicine" comment, a nice sly way to reference Holmes' old habits.

H Birchgrove
2011-10-17, 08:10 AM
To be fair, the cap, deerstalker etc was used in the original stories when Holmes were at the countryside.

Wearing them in London would have been faux pas (sp?) though.

turkishproverb
2011-10-17, 08:17 AM
Exactly. It had become too omnipresent.

bluewind95
2011-10-17, 11:55 AM
I agree in general, but you took it overboard a bit. He wasn't the huge misogynist you make him out to be. Generally he didn't discuss women, aside from pointing out that they were, in the way Watson kept discussing them (IE with somewhat romantic connotations), outside his purview and area of interest. He also made this reason quite clear, discussing how in his opinion "the most winning woman I ever knew was hanged for poisoning three little children for their insurance-money"

In other words, women are of interest to him in the same way cases are. Not exactly Misogynist.


I recall him making several very misogynistic comments. He held a lot of contempt for women due to their "more emotional-driven" nature. He also once, under disguise, became engaged to a woman for no other reason than to get information from her and didn't even feel any remorse in using her this way. Even Watson was horrified with this, despite the fact that misogyny was a fair bit more acceptable then than it is now. The main reason he respected Irene Adler (respected. I don't know where people get that he liked her romantically) was that he was completely astounded that a woman of all things was able to outmaneuver him. Many more men were able to get a step ahead of him. He never regarded them with the same awe with which he saw Irene. Even Professor Moriarty, whom he also respected quite highly, didn't astound Holmes as much as Irene. He seemed to be a lot readier to accept an intelligent and resourceful man than a woman.

Of course, this kind of attitude would definitely have to be downplayed in any modern adaptation. It may have been a lot more acceptable back then, but it just wouldn't fly with modern audiences. But his huge asexuality? That's not a cultural trait, but rather an integral, defining part of his character.

Another thing is that it is an extremely well-known fact that Holmes was addicted to cocaine. This is an example of a cultural thing. The author never meant for Holmes to be addicted to an illegal substance. Cocaine was a very acceptable thing then. There's actually very few references to Holmes's cocaine addiction because shortly after the author began to publish the Holmes stories, the dangers of cocaine were discovered and it was made an illegal substance. In the stories, Watson quickly cured Holmes of his addiction. But this is the main addiction that's ever rememebered, and there was a far more defining addiction: tobacco. He so often used it as a stimulant when he was thinking of a problem, that he would at times make the atmosphere in his appartment so noxious that Watson, a smoker himself, could not breathe in it. I heard that the new (and, from what I hear, better) adaptation of Holmes actually keeps the important addiction: the nicotine, not the illegal addiction that serves little purpose in an adaptation but to create angst as the character battles the terrible effects of a dangerous addiction, distracting from the important and defining things. I hear that in the new adaptation, Holmes doesn't actually smoke... but is very much addicted to nicotine patches. See, this is an example of a change that doesn't miss the point entirely. It changes the material, but keeps the essence of it intact.

I think this is the kind of thing that's woefully missing from adaptations (and sometimes a show's general continuity). Things are changed that entirely miss the point of what made the original thing so special. This is why people tend to dislike adaptations. Just as an example, there's a game I like a lot called Magi Nation. Definitely one of my favourite games of all time. The protagonist, Tony, is a snarky, rather smart yet shy kid thrown into a fantasy world. Precisely the reason Tony is so likeable is that he's snarky and intelligent and fairly genre-savvy. They made a TV show out of the videogame. To make him "more relatable", they changed his appearance and also made him into the typical impulsive, idiotic child protagonist. Way to miss the point. :smallsigh:

turkishproverb
2011-10-17, 06:38 PM
I recall him making several very misogynistic comments. He held a lot of contempt for women due to their "more emotional-driven" nature. He also once, under disguise, became engaged to a woman for no other reason than to get information from her and didn't even feel any remorse in using her this way. Even Watson was horrified with this, despite the fact that misogyny was a fair bit more acceptable then than it is now. The main reason he respected Irene Adler (respected. I don't know where people get that he liked her romantically) was that he was completely astounded that a woman of all things was able to outmaneuver him. Many more men were able to get a step ahead of him. He never regarded them with the same awe with which he saw Irene. Even Professor Moriarty, whom he also respected quite highly, didn't astound Holmes as much as Irene. He seemed to be a lot readier to accept an intelligent and resourceful man than a woman.

Of course, this kind of attitude would definitely have to be downplayed in any modern adaptation. It may have been a lot more acceptable back then, but it just wouldn't fly with modern audiences. But his huge asexuality? That's not a cultural trait, but rather an integral, defining part of his character. gh:

He used a woman for a case when he got engaged to her, hardly a huge sign of misogyny from a guy that's done the same, without the same connotations, to WATSON on occasion. He does that all the time. And he does comment on a woman as emotion drive, while referring to her AS A CLIENT. he's making that comment in a way that is ostensibly about clients in general.

Most of his other "misogynist" comments refer to women as inscrutable, hard to predict, etc, and frankly that's hardly misogynist given that your average person of either gender might say that. This is to say nothing of his, noted by Watson, courteous and well mannered behavior towards women. Further, a good chunk of these comments were made AFTER his being "beaten" by Irene, suggesting they are made as acknowledgment of his failure to predict them.

ON Irene, well, with Moriarty he knew the problem. Irene surprised him entirely. That's why he had such respect for her.