Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows

[mr. peasant]

I think what people mean is let's not just talk about who should play Moriarty.

To that end, what does anyone think about the prospects of Adler (Rachel McAdams) returning in the sequel? Would she still be useful both, as a henchwoman to Moriarty (or is she a liability?) and as a character (in the movie/story), now that her con is up?

Also, anyone else hoping to see the Baker Street Irregulars make an apppearance? I always thought they were an essential part to the Sherlock Holmes mythos and his awareness on the usefulness of employing street urchins as spies and informants what differentiates him from your usual detectives.

 

[That-Guy]

I'd be all for McAdams coming back if they can find a way to use her better. She was okay in the first film, but if it had a true weak spot, it was her character as a whole. She really wasn't given much to do. Hopefully if she returns, they'll find a way to involve her more.

 

[DACrowe]

She was weak, but I don't think she hurt the film. I'd say Lord Blackwood and his dull schemes were the weak link of the first film.

 

[That-Guy]

She was weak, but I don't think she hurt the film. I'd say Lord Blackwood and his dull schemes were the weak link of the first film.

I didn't mind that so much, since the villain plot wasn't terribly important to me. Just like with Star Trek, I was more concerned about how the heroes were fleshed out... the villain plot was kind of an afterthought since I knew going in that he was a one-and-done bad guy and that we were really setting up for the Professor.

But I do think that Adler should have been a bit more central. That's my one complaint about the film. It's never very clear why Holmes holds her in such high regard (other than the obvious attraction he had toward her). They SAY that she tricked him and all that, but aside from the wine bottle thing, we don't really get much of a glimpse into how devious she may or may not be.

 

[Majik1387]

It was the whole necklace thing is why Holmes held her in high regard, or was I the only one that noticed?

 

[BestGirl]

Irene should still continue working for Moriarty. If she doesn't I don't know why she'd even be in the film. She should double-cross him to help Holmes, however.

 

[Pythagoras]

I'm hoping Moriarty doesn't come face to face with Holmes until part 3 at least. I loved that he was in the shadows.

Yeah build the rivarly and tension up between the 2 men. Can have Jack The Ripper be the bad guy in the second film.

Also Brad Pitt playing Moriarty? That be interesting.

 

[mr. peasant]

Irene should still continue working for Moriarty. If she doesn't I don't know why she'd even be in the film. She should double-cross him to help Holmes, however.

But that's precisely the problem. 'Realistically' speaking, someone of Moriarty's intelligence would see the double-cross coming a mile away and would have preempted this by terminating their relationship (or just her) now that he has no real use for her. He'd know that her relationship with Holmes has now changed from an advantage to a liability.

 

[BestGirl]

But that's precisely the problem. 'Realistically' speaking, someone of Moriarty's intelligence would see the double-cross coming a mile away and would have preempted this by terminating their relationship (or just her) now that he has no real use for her. He'd know that her relationship with Holmes has now changed from an advantage to a liability.

Exactly. He'd see the double-cross coming and instead use her to mess up Holmes's investigation.

 

[DACrowe]

Irene should still continue working for Moriarty. If she doesn't I don't know why she'd even be in the film. She should double-cross him to help Holmes, however.

she was in the movie because the studio wanted a love interest. Ritchie really doesn't seem to like working with women and it showed here. It was a calculated studio move, really.

But even so for that role McAdams was fine. A little weak, but her character is superfolous to the narrative for it to not matter as much. While a villain may be "one and done," I believe films (with rare exceptions like LOTR) are stand alone works. Each film in a franchise or series should stand out as an individual work. That means a great villain. Most of the great villains of cinema only appeared in a film each. If they are going to turn Sherlock into a superhero, then he needs an equally interesting supervillain. Next time I hope they succeed.

 

[Turtles]

It was the whole necklace thing is why Holmes held her in high regard, or was I the only one that noticed?

If Sherlock Holmes held every criminal who stole something valuable in high regard, then he'd probably hold 1/2 of the criminals he ever caught in high regard.

Sherlock Holmes holds Adler in high regard mainly because she outsmarted him twice (Watson says as much). The whole bit with the necklace was thrown in there just to prove Alder is a thief and Holmes has good observation skills.

I'd say Lord Blackwood and his dull schemes were the weak link of the first film.

I don't know if Lord Blackwood was dull, I think it all depends on how you look at him and his schemes. If you look at Lord Blackwood, and you see a guy using science and calling it magic just to scare the crap out people, and you just stop there, then you'll think he's a stupid, dull villian with stupid, dull schemes. He might seem like a corny villain from a Disney movie.

But if you look at Lord Blackwood, and you see a guy using science and calling magic just to scare the crap out of people, and then you take into account the skill required to pull that off, and the way people of that time period were actually freaked out by the idea of magic, then you might not think him and his schemes are so stupid or so dull.

Basically, I'm saying put things in the context of the movie. The whole "fake magic" thing is stupid to us, but back then it could really scare the **** out of people, and a guy like Lord Blackwood probably could have gotten far with his "dull" schemes.

Compare this to, say, The Crucible. All the girls accusing people of witchcraft, the villains of that particular film, were pretty dull and stupid on the surface. They faked being possessed, they accused people of witchcraft....yeah, real frightening villains there. But now think about the fact that those girls and their stupid antics got a ton of people hanged and nearly caused an entire town to destroy itself......yeah, not so stupid and dull now, are they? It's more or less the same with Lord Blackwood I think.

I hope that makes sense. Just so you know, I'm not arguing about the weak link point. If you think Lord Blackwood and his schemes are the weak link, then so be it. I'm just trying to make people look at Lord Blackwood and his schemes in a different way before they just dismiss him and his schemes as stupid and dull because the whole science disguised as magic thing isn't scary to people who see that sort of thing on CSI every other day.

 

[Evil Twin]

Yeah build the rivarly and tension up between the 2 men. Can have Jack The Ripper be the bad guy in the second film.

Lord Blackwell, with his 5 murders as background, was pretty much Jack the Ripper. With a few swipes off of Alan Moore's FROM HELL, such as a map of London forming a symbolic pattern and Freemason conspiracy in all but name.

 

[Pythagoras]

Lord Blackwell, with his 5 murders as background, was pretty much Jack the Ripper. With a few swipes off of Alan Moore's FROM HELL, such as a map of London forming a symbolic pattern and Freemason conspiracy in all but name.

Well what about the Elephant Man?

 

[Doctor Jones]

God no. Making him a bad guy only because he's deformed? It's so obvious and it's sad to think that one with a deformity must be a bad guy. You're taking away his humanity and what he wanted to prove. This isn't Batman.

Watch The Elephant Man and you'll see what I'm talking about. You'll hate yourself for saying that.

 

[Evil Twin]

I don't know if Lord Blackwood was dull, I think it all depends on how you look at him and his schemes. If you look at Lord Blackwood, and you see a guy using science and calling it magic just to scare the crap out people, and you just stop there, then you'll think he's a stupid, dull villian with stupid, dull schemes. He might seem like a corny villain from a Disney movie.

But if you look at Lord Blackwood, and you see a guy using science and calling magic just to scare the crap out of people, and then you take into account the skill required to pull that off, and the way people of that time period were actually freaked out by the idea of magic, then you might not think him and his schemes are so stupid or so dull.

Basically, I'm saying put things in the context of the movie. The whole "fake magic" thing is stupid to us, but back then it could really scare the **** out of people, and a guy like Lord Blackwood probably could have gotten far with his "dull" schemes.

There's nothing wrong with "fake magic". Heck, that's The Hound of the Baskervilles.

But, other than his methods, what's really memorable about Lord Blackwood? A Hans Gruber has an interesting way of expressing himself, has more than one side, and presents an interesting contrast to the hero. Blackwood is one note "ominously evil". Throughout. The only hidden depth of him is that he's using "science" instead of magic. He's a Scooby Doo villain.

 

[BestGirl]

she was in the movie because the studio wanted a love interest. Ritchie really doesn't seem to like working with women and it showed here. It was a calculated studio move, really.

Oh, I know, but the excuse for having her in the movie was that she was working for Moriarty and he wanted Blackwood's device. If she doesn't work for Moriarty in SH2 why would she even be in the movie? She'd probably be in jail or would head back to New Jersey. There needs to be some reason for her to appear in SH2, and all I can think of is that she goes back to work for Moriarty in an effort to double-cross him or Holmes asks for her assistance because she knows Moriarty and his methods.

But even so for that role McAdams was fine. A little weak, but her character is superfolous to the narrative for it to not matter as much. While a villain may be "one and done," I believe films (with rare exceptions like LOTR) are stand alone works. Each film in a franchise or series should stand out as an individual work. That means a great villain. Most of the great villains of cinema only appeared in a film each. If they are going to turn Sherlock into a superhero, then he needs an equally interesting supervillain. Next time I hope they succeed.

I thought McAdams was good in the role, too. She was certainly better than I expected her to be.

 

[Pythagoras]

God no. Making him a bad guy only because he's deformed? It's so obvious and it's sad to think that one with a deformity must be a bad guy. You're taking away his humanity and what he wanted to prove. This isn't Batman.

Watch The Elephant Man and you'll see what I'm talking about. You'll hate yourself for saying that.

I do not mean to offend the man but saying that.

 

[Turtles]

Yeah build the rivarly and tension up between the 2 men. Can have Jack The Ripper be the bad guy in the second film.

Jack the Ripper has been done too many times. I'd like to see one of two (or both) types of villains in the sequel:

1. A totally original villain.
2. The second most dangerous man in London, and Moriarty's top henchman, Colonel Sebastian Moran.

Well what about the Elephant Man?

You're not the same guy from the last thread that kept insisting the Elephant Man WAS Jack the Ripper, are you?

Oh, I know, but the excuse for having her in the movie was that she was working for Moriarty and he wanted Blackwood's device. If she doesn't work for Moriarty in SH2 why would she even be in the movie? She'd probably be in jail or would head back to New Jersey. There needs to be some reason for her to appear in SH2, and all I can think of is that she goes back to work for Moriarty in an effort to double-cross him or Holmes asks for her assistance because she knows Moriarty and his methods.

If Irene Adler is no longer working for Moriarty, I can think of several ways the writers could shoe-horn her back into the story. The crappy reasons we might see her again are literally endless.

1. Adler sticks around to help Holmes take down Moriarty because she knows his methods and how dangerous he is.
2. One of Adler's London based schemes just so happens to overlap one of Holmes cases and the pair meet by accident.
3. Moriarty tries to kill her because she knows too much, and Holmes comes to the rescue.
4. Alder remains in London, and Holmes watches her throughout half the movie because he A. doesn't want her hurt, B. wants to make sure she's not committing any crimes, C. is a tad in love with her.
5. When Watson is with Mary, she could fill in as Holmes' partner.
6. Adler just so happens to know something, or someone, that can help Holmes solve a case (think John Turturro's character in Transformers 2)
7. Knowing she would quit and help Holmes, Moriarty had been feeding her false information, and her whole purpose for being in the movie will be to give that false information to Holmes and accidentally lure him into some sort of trap.
8. Adler is put in jail for a crime Moriarty or the current villain is responsible for (Maybe Moriarty makes it so she takes the fall to get her back for double-crossing him?), and the whole movie deals with Holmes trying to prove her innocence and put the real criminal behind bars.
9. Adler escapes from jail or police custody, and Holmes is called to track her down and capture her.

#8 is the only one I'd even remotely like to see. But, If writers can find ways to stick Arwen in all three LotR movies, I'm sure they can find ways to stick Irene Adler into all the Sherlock Holmes movies.

 

[Pythagoras]

Jack the Ripper has been done too many times. I'd like to see one of two (or both) types of villains in the sequel:

1. A totally original villain.
2. The second most dangerous man in London, and Moriarty's top henchman, Colonel Sebastian Moran.



You're not the same guy from the last thread that kept insisting the Elephant Man WAS Jack the Ripper, are you?



If Irene Adler is no longer working for Moriarty, I can think of several ways the writers could shoe-horn her back into the story. The crappy reasons we might see her again are literally endless.

1. Adler sticks around to help Holmes take down Moriarty because she knows his methods and how dangerous he is.
2. One of Adler's London based schemes just so happens to overlap one of Holmes cases and the pair meet by accident.
3. Moriarty tries to kill her because she knows too much, and Holmes comes to the rescue.
4. Alder remains in London, and Holmes watches her throughout half the movie because he A. doesn't want her hurt, B. wants to make sure she's not committing any crimes, C. is a tad in love with her.
5. When Watson is with Mary, she could fill in as Holmes' partner.
6. Adler just so happens to know something, or someone, that can help Holmes solve a case (think John Turturro's character in Transformers 2)
7. Knowing she would quit and help Holmes, Moriarty had been feeding her false information, and her whole purpose for being in the movie will be to give that false information to Holmes and accidentally lure him into some sort of trap.
8. Adler is put in jail for a crime Moriarty or the current villain is responsible for (Maybe Moriarty makes it so she takes the fall to get her back for double-crossing him?), and the whole movie deals with Holmes trying to prove her innocence and put the real criminal behind bars.
9. Adler escapes from jail or police custody, and Holmes is called to track her down and capture her.

#8 is the only one I'd even remotely like to see. But, If writers can find ways to stick Arwen in all three LotR movies, I'm sure they can find ways to stick Irene Adler into all the Sherlock Holmes movies.

No...could Dr. Fu Manchu work in a Sherlock Holmes movie as a villian?

 

[Doctor Jones]

Nope. The rights to using him are impossible to use. He is the villain of the LXG graphic novel and when the producers tried to buy the rights to use him as the villain for the LXG film, they couldn't get the rights, hence using The Phantom.

 

[Pythagoras]

Nope. The rights to using him are impossible to use. He is the villain of the LXG graphic novel and when the producers tried to buy the rights to use him as the villain for the LXG film, they couldn't get the rights, hence using The Phantom.

That sucks he would make a great villian in a Sherlock Holmes flick.

 

[Christopher Nolan]

i enjoyed the movie very much. i would like a second movie. i was concerned about the movie, after i watched the trailer, but definitely a good movie. and i know it had been mentioned a lot but i say it again, downey jr. is a great actor.

 

[matrix_ghost]

I posted this in the Sherlock Holmes thread
http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?p=17964371

RDJ's schedule opens up, Sherlock Holmes 2 filming in June?

I wonder if WB is looking to strengthen summer 2011. Probably too tight for a Christmas 2010 release, but August 2011 or December 2011?

I dunno how much they want to strenghten their summer anyway
They have Hangover 2 in May , Green Lantern in JUne and the final Potter movie in JUly.

WB must want to release the sequel in the summer, and to do that I would assume they would have to start filming many months earlier than they did last time. If WB wanted the sequel to be released in December again, then they probably would have just chosen to start filming at the end of the year like they did last time and allowed RDJ to complete his work on Cowboys and Aliens.

The sequel might make a good August release, but I'm unsure about whether it could carry a June or July release.

A summer release does make sense because WB is partnering with MGM to make the Hobbit fora planned december '11 release. While the legal problems with MGM need to be dealt with , PJ and Guillermo are contuining with making the movie ( dealing with cadting etc.)
We haven't heard anything of them delaying so i think that WB is still going for a december '11 release.
WB isn't Fox in that they'll release 2 of their own flicks within the same month.
Although......maybe WB is readying Sherlock Homes for a Dec 2011 release because they're seeing that the legal problems for Hobbit might cause it to be pushed back.
And November is also out of the question since they'll release Happy 2.

Don't be surprised if WB sees their summer movies performing extraordinary well ( Hangover 2's premise sounds great on paper and this potter may actually go beyond 1 billion WW) , they'll decide to push back Holmes to summer/winter of 2012

It basically dealt with how WB was fas tracking the sequel.

Variety just ran an article on New Line's new status . They had an interesting tidbit :
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118014180.html?categoryid=2520&cs=1

Horn won't predict when the first of the two "Hobbit" films will be out, but says the most probable scenario would be a release in the fourth quarter of 2012.

Based on the original schedule the first Hobbit movie would've been released in dec of 2011 and the 2nd one would be released in dec of 2012.
With the first movie now being delayed for almost a year , i think that WB will most likely release the Sherlock Holmes sequel in dec of 2011.
The release date for the first Holmes movie was very profitable .

 

[Shifty]

They delayed Harry Potter by 9 months so holding onto Sherlock Holmes until December 2011 due to The Hobbit's delay seems likely.

 

[That-Guy]

You're not the same guy from the last thread that kept insisting the Elephant Man WAS Jack the Ripper, are you?

LOL someone seriously thought this?

Well, you know, the murders were never solved...

Have the Elephant Man and Jack the Ripper ever been seen at the same place at the same time?