Warner Bros. Reimagining Sherlock Holmes

[Turtles]

It looks nice, but it doesn't strike me as Sherlock Holmes.

It doesn't strike a lot of people as being Sherlock Holmes because so many people are conditioned to think of Sherlock Holmes as nothing other than a tall, skinny guy who smokes a big pipe, wears a deerstalker hat and a cloak, and says "elementary, my dear Watson," every other sentence.

It's a case of people being influenced more by his previous movies, and artist renderings of him, than the actual stories he's in.

First my enthusiasm for this flick disappeared completely, since I'm kinda ''done'' with huge-budget-stupid-action-flicks, but I'd love to catch this one anyway. I mean, it is obvious that they raped the characters completely, but probably in a very cool way. Plus, it's a Guy Ritchie flick. You can say what you want, but that man made some goddamn entertaining flicks.

Maybe not completely. Sherlock could, and would, fight (though I'm not sure he'd go out of his way to fight like he might be doing here), he was messy (reading the Musgrave Ritual will tell you that much in the opening paragraph), and, as cold and arrogant as he was, he could be both charming and humble when he needed to be. The romantic side of him is clearly out of character, though.

There really isn't anything too implicit in the story. Only the fact that Watson says Holmes only refers to her as "the woman." And that he acknowledges her as one of the few people to beat him (besides Moriarty).

Really, it was more of a theory that sprung up from fans of the book, and it gained more popularity there than from any actual events in the story itself. However, it certainly could be viewed in that context.
Basically, it was a fan theory that gained popularity, and has, because of the popularity of the idea, been embellished upon much more in movies and tv series.

So, you're saying that this is every fanfiction writer's dream come true?

Uh, the worst thing is that, if there is a sequel, they'll probably try to bring Adler back. The world's most famous detective duo will officially become a trio.

 

[Carmine Falcone]

You should never be "done" with any genre Carmine, a true film fan has an open mind to appreciating all cinema has to offer, not just the high brow subtitled stuff that works as a woman repellent at parties and 70's sepia toned cop flicks.

You've got a (quite hilarious) point there, Hunter. And I am open minded, it´s just that I know what I like and don´t. And I hardly find any entertainment in simple action movies anymore. Action gets boring to me. It´s one of the reason why I detest the 80´s....(but let´s not get into that right now ...If I had my way I would never watch anything starring Stallone or Schwarzenegger again). But there are some action movies that I do like, because of the cast or some original aspect of it. This movie seems to fall in that category. Holmes is a great character, RDJ is a great actor and I like Ritchie. It doesn´t seem truly stupid either.

And when I talked about "to rape the character", I just meant to say, in a funny way, that they twisted the characters to make them fit this blockbuster. Because really, as cool as the Conan Doyle stories are, they wouldn´t make really exciting movies. And as a duo, Holmes and Watson never punched eachother or traded funny quips. I´ve got no problem with that, I´m not a Holmes purist in any way. Hell, I´m not a purist in anything. I approve of new twists on any "stale" material.

 

[The Guard]

I am reasonably certain that in A SCANDAL IN BOHEMIA (or is it THE FINAL ADVENTURE?), he says of Irene Adler, "If there was a woman I would have loved, she would have been it" or Watson says something like that, or something along those lines.

 

[The Guard]

I am reasonably certain that in A SCANDAL IN BOHEMIA (or is it THE FINAL ADVENTURE?), he says of Irene Adler, "If there was a woman I would have loved, she would have been it" or Watson says something like that, or something along those lines.

 

[ChickenScratch]

It doesn't strike a lot of people as being Sherlock Holmes because so many people are conditioned to think of Sherlock Holmes as nothing other than a tall, skinny guy who smokes a big pipe, wears a deerstalker hat and a cloak, and says "elementary, my dear Watson," every other sentence.

It's a case of people being influenced more by his previous movies, and artist renderings of him, than the actual stories he's in.

So because it doesn't strike me as Holmes you suspect that my knowledge of the character stems from an artists illustration (the hat) and "elementary, my dear Watson" (something he never said in the books). No, I actually know Holmes, read all the books and short stories several times, in fact I just finished "The Adventure Of The Red Circle" for maybe the 10th time last night.

My expectations on Holmes are just different, and from what I see in the previews are not it.

 

[블라스]

Wow, take a ****ing chill pill.

It's not about taking a chill pill, man...I get what he's trying to say.

I gotta say, one of the reasons I stopped posting in here is the amount of insufferable movie elitists and their "Yeah, doesn't matter what you say/do...I am better than you, and I can prove it by endlessly arguing on the internet!".
Sure, there's cool people (Rob, I'm waiting for your email! ), but for the most part, it's just an annoying "I like better movies than you" wanker-fest, and it is just that....ANNOYING.

I feel we're getting the same deal with Sherlock here, and all his "true fans".
There have been so many different interpretations of Sherlock...this is just another one. One that builds on some of the classic Sherlock elements from the novels, elements that have not been fully explored before.

So what exactly is so wrong with this new version? I've said it so many times before....we've had the super cool, rational SH (Basil Rathbone), the very faithful to the source, yet neurotic SH (Jeremy Butler), the warm, affectionate SH (Christopher Plummer), the obviously gay SH (Robert Stephens), etc, etc, etc. Can't we have a more action-oriented SH then?

Nope, we can't, because we live in the Internet era, where people state their opinions as facts, where people think "the more cynical I act, the cooler I'll be!", where people somehow get some kind of kick by acting "superior" and belittling "the masses" in their movie taste, stopping short of calling them "idiots" for cheering for a SH movie that...oh no! has action and explosions!. Man, screw that.

I swear to God, if the Internet had been functional in the 30's/40's, we'd have all kinds of "Man, Watson is not supposed to be an idiot! Screw this movie and screw this Basil guy!" threads and comments. Because it seems to me that some people are only happy by whining and criticizing movies before they actually see them, basing their opinion of the whole human race on 2.5 minutes of footage. I mean, I've seen people complaining about the hat, the pipe, and whatnot. "Screw this movie! Sherlock doesn't look like Sherlock!" heh, when they haven't even read the stories, and they don't know that some of those elements weren't even mentioned in the stories! I mean, please do some research before you open your mouth.

Me? I'm happy. I've been reading Sherlock Holmes since I was a kid (thanks, Dad). I've enjoyed the many versions of the character (and own some of them, including the great Basil Rathbone movies, and the fantastic Jeremy Butler series, and I am quite excited about the new BBC modern version of the character, with Martin Freeman as Watson!), and I've read many of his pastiches (Sherlock vs. Cthulhu? Classic!). And while I've yet to know if this will be a good movie or not, I am more than open to go see it. I can't wait to see an action-y take on the character, because that's all it is...another take on the character.

I don't expect some people to be open-minded, and I certainly don't expect them to read/understand what I'm saying, and frankly, I don't care.

Go do your cynical thing if that's what makes you happy in life.

 

[BestGirl]

So because it doesn't strike me as Holmes you suspect that my knowledge of the character stems from an artists illustration (the hat) and "elementary, my dear Watson" (something he never said in the books). No, I actually know Holmes, read all the books and short stories several times, in fact I just finished "The Adventure Of The Red Circle" for maybe the 10th time last night.

My expectations on Holmes are just different, and from what I see in the previews are not it.

I read virtually every Holmes story when i was a kid, and I can't say that this movie feel very Holmesian either. The stories seemed more sedate and less action-packed somehow, but like I said, it's been years since I read them. Like I said, I'm over it, and this movie looks like it's going to be a lot of fun so I'm just going to try to sit back and enjoy it.

 

[TheVileOne]

Even Robert Downey Jr. knows that Jude Law is Hotson. He said so at Comic Con.

 

[mr. peasant]

Uh, the worst thing is that, if there is a sequel, they'll probably try to bring Adler back. The world's most famous detective duo will officially become a trio.

Or, they could try to do a 'James Bond' and create new female characters.

 

[Venomfan]

is Adler not English?

anyone know?

 

[Doctor Jones]

God forbid they try to change some things. Little things. Not major things. They seem to be staying true to the character for the most part. This is today. This is a new era. Injecting action and some romance isn't a bad thing. It's new, it's different. Because God forbid someone goes a little different in the formula, **** hits the ceiling. Honestly, what's wrong with these new little things they've inserted into this film? I've read the script, and it's great. It's intelligent and witty. This is a trailer. Most people base their opinions on nitpicky things in a two and a half minute trailer anyway. All the time. Wait until you see the film itself. Trailers are made to put the asses in the seats. So of course the purist fanboys who can't see that or give a **** will think that they're right. BUt you know what usually happens? They're wrong. Because they think whatever they want and see should happen and IS the correct way when in fact it isn't.

 

[Frodo]

I dunno. I'm just not feeling it. It looks more like Wild Wild West or The League of Extrodinary Gentlemen to me. I'm gonna wait for the reviews before putting down any cash.

On a side note , if you want to see some unique versions of the Holmes myth watch the films A Case of Evil, The 7% Solution and The Frank Langella Stage version of Sherlock Holmes. They all portray Holmes as a human being with flaws , fears and faults.

 

[Infinity9999x]

So, you're saying that this is every fanfiction writer's dream come true?

Uh, the worst thing is that, if there is a sequel, they'll probably try to bring Adler back. The world's most famous detective duo will officially become a trio.

Basically, but really, that's the danger of becoming a character that gets ingrained into pop culture. The deerstalker coat and hat where never actually mentioned in Holmes lore, yet it's become an iconic part of the character. The Three Musketeers never actually said "All for one and one for all!" yet again, it's become their motto.

Was Holmes ever a romantic in the stories? Not really, but if the romance is written well enough, I don't really have a problem with it.

I read virtually every Holmes story when i was a kid, and I can't say that this movie feel very Holmesian either. The stories seemed more sedate and less action-packed somehow, but like I said, it's been years since I read them. Like I said, I'm over it, and this movie looks like it's going to be a lot of fun so I'm just going to try to sit back and enjoy it.

They were. The thing is, while the actual Holmes could do many of the things this movie is showing, we very rarely saw it as readers. A great boxer tells Watson that Holmes nearly beat him in a bareknuckle boxing match. Holmes tells Watson about how good of a fencer he is. Holmes tells Watson how he singlehandedly fought off Moriarity's men. Holmes tells Watson of how he used Baritsu (which was most likely a typo of Bartitsu) to throw Moriarty into Reichenbach Falls.

We're told a lot, but we rarely saw any of the feats. This movie is more or less taking out the "tell" aspect and showing us what he can do.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichenbach_Falls

 

[BestGirl]

anyone know?

Wiki says that Adler was an American in the stories (I didn't remember that) and based on that one line by McAdams it sounds like they've kept that nationality.

Here's a quote from A Scandal in Bohemia that describes Holmes's feelings for Adler:

To Sherlock Holmes she is always the woman. I have seldom heard him mention her under any other name. In his eyes she eclipses and predominates the whole of her sex. It was not that he felt any emotion akin to love for Irene Adler. All emotions, and that one particularly, were abhorrent to his cold, precise but admirably balanced mind. He was, I take it, the most perfect reasoning and observing machine that the world has seen, but as a lover he would have placed himself in a false position. He never spoke of the softer passions, save with a gibe and a sneer. They were admirable things for the observer — excellent for drawing the veil from men's motives and actions. But for the trained reasoner to admit such intrusions into his own delicate and finely adjusted temperament was to introduce a distracting factor which might throw a doubt upon all his mental results. Grit in a sensitive instrument, or a crack in one of his own high-power lenses, would not be more disturbing than a strong emotion in a nature such as his. And yet there was but one woman to him, and that woman was the late Irene Adler, of dubious and questionable memory.

So I take it he didn't love her, but he was fascinated by her. I wonder how their relationship will be portrayed in the movie.

 

[Turtles]

So because it doesn't strike me as Holmes you suspect that my knowledge of the character stems from an artists illustration (the hat) and "elementary, my dear Watson" (something he never said in the books). No, I actually know Holmes, read all the books and short stories several times, in fact I just finished "The Adventure Of The Red Circle" for maybe the 10th time last night.

My expectations on Holmes are just different, and from what I see in the previews are not it.

Don't take offense. I was stating a fact about people in general, not you specifically.

Or, they could try to do a 'James Bond' and create new female characters.

They could try to do this, yes, but it would probably mean creating a new character from scratch, or drastically changing one from the stories, because there are almost no other women that are as popular, as well known, and as important to Holmes as Irene Adler. None that I can think of right now, anyway.

I don't know what would be worse.....Holmes falling in love with some random girl in each movie like James Bond, or just having Adler back for each movie?

Was Holmes ever a romantic in the stories? Not really, but if the romance is written well enough, I don't really have a problem with it.

I hate pretty much all romances, especially the cliche ones we see in movies. So, if there is a Holmes/Adler romance added into the story, then it will have to be really convincing for me not to want to hate Guy Ritchie for ruining one of the aspects about Holmes (the fact that he wasn't like James bond, and falling in love with a new girl in each story), that I really liked.

 

[Infinity9999x]

I hate pretty much all romances, especially the cliche ones we see in movies. So, if there is a Holmes/Adler romance added into the story, then it will have to be really convincing for me not to want to hate Guy Ritchie for ruining one of the aspects about Holmes (the fact that he wasn't like James bond, and falling in love with a new girl in each story), that I really liked.

It doesn't bother me that much, but I would rather they not turn Holmes into Bond and introduce a new girl each movie.

Unless they introduce a new girl and only have Holmes be pretending to be in love with her to get information (something Holmes did do in the original stories). And only bring back Adler in the third or last movie.

 

[ChickenScratch]

Don't take offense. I was stating a fact about people in general, not you specifically.

It would serve you well not to quote someone's post then say you are not talking to them but about the situation in general. There's one interpretation of quoting someone's post, and that's that you are addressing the poster.

It would serve you well to speak in generalities when you mean to and not point out specific posts/posters but claim them general. After all, there is a huge difference between general, and specific. It's called tact.

 

[Octoberist]

Turtles, I think you're painting 'romances' in movies in really really broad strokes..

 

[Octoberist]

Turtles, I think you're painting 'romances' in movies in really really broad strokes..

 

[TheVileOne]

Regarding the romance in the movie:

Spoiler

Holmes and Adler have a past with each other and are both very attracted to each other and like each other. They meet and have sex. Holmes and Adler seem to mutually agree that it wouldn't work out in the long run (at least up to the part where I am.

Watson is about to get married and is trying to move on with his life, but he can't quite stop living the life he does with Holmes. Holmes relies on and needs Watson, and in his own way, Watson seems to feel the same.

Anyone remember Zero Effect? The movie is basically sort of like that except with Sherlock Holmes.

 

[Doctor Jones]

I'd be interesting in a sequel to have a love interest that Holmes uses. Maybe he knows that she was bad the whole time while we didn't. That would be pretty great.

 

[Infinity9999x]

I'd be interesting in a sequel to have a love interest that Holmes uses. Maybe he knows that she was bad the whole time while we didn't. That would be pretty great.

That's what I was thinking. That would be a very Holmes-like thing to do.

 

[Turtles]

It doesn't bother me that much, but I would rather they not turn Holmes into Bond and introduce a new girl each movie.

Unless they introduce a new girl and only have Holmes be pretending to be in love with her to get information (something Holmes did do in the original stories). And only bring back Adler in the third or last movie.

I could go alone with that. It's still an old Hollywood cliche, but at least it's truer to Holmes' character.

It would serve you well not to quote someone's post then say you are not talking to them but about the situation in general. There's one interpretation of quoting someone's post, and that's that you are addressing the poster.

It would serve you well to speak in generalities when you mean to and not point out specific posts/posters but claim them general. After all, there is a huge difference between general, and specific. It's called tact.

It would serve you well not to treat every reply to your post as an attack on your character.

Newsflash, a lot of people speak in generalities when replying to posts, because they're focused on the text in the post, not on the person who posted it. And people quote other people just to show why they're bringing something up, or where they got their idea, so they can connect their post to an ongoing part of a discussion.

By the way, if I was attacking you specifically, and really calling into question your knowledge of Sherlock Holmes, I probably would had said something like this in my original post:

That doesn't strike you as being Sherlock Holmes? Gee, you're probably one of those people who hasn't read a single Sherlock Holmes story, and takes everything they know about Sherlock Holmes from inaccurate illustrations and old movies that started a campaign of misinformation that lasted for decades. A lot of people do that.

See the difference?

Turtles, I think you're painting 'romances' in movies in really really broad strokes..

I know, but it's kinda hard for me not to. After years of seeing the same romantic formulas repeated time and time again, I've just stopped paying attention them. And then there is the fact that I just don't like them, and I tend to lump things I don't like into one big ball and ignore them.

 

[ChickenScratch]

Well I have red 'em all, and my opinion of what I've seen so far is way below my expectations. Don't like my opinion, fine.

And I do treat replies quoting me as an attack on me, after all, it was my post specifically being quoted.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I don't know what it is but I just not feeling this flick. Maybe it's the director, I've never watched a Guy Richie flick and have never had the urge too.

I can always fall back on the fact that I disliked Iron Man's trailers and loved the flick, so who knows?