Warner Bros. Reimagining Sherlock Holmes

[Kahran Ramsus]

I'm not sure where people are getting this gay subtext thing, unless you take it as others have said, and that it's being played as a joke. I wouldn't say it was implied they were gay at all. It was like others have said, more of an "Odd Couple" relationship.

I could maybe see it with Holmes, given how jealous he is of Watson's fiance, but if it is there it is definitely one-sided. More likely there are just heterosexual partners and Holmes is just so cut off from society that he is terrified of losing the one human being on earth that he actually has a personal relationship with.

That ridiculous. When you go into a mystery with the attitude of "I'm sure the bad guy did it, but I dont care how" then what is the point of the mystery? The purpose of mystery fiction is for the reader/viwer to be intrigued and attempt to figure it out. You are saying that none of details mattered, and that all that mattered was the "why" of the crime. You admit that you didn't figure that out, and you admit that you didn't figure out any of the other things that Sherlock figured out...so why do you think it was too easy to figure out???

Spoiler

What I mean is that Blackwood used a chemical or chemical compound to perform his magic is important, the name is not. The writers could have named it anything. What is important is what it is and what it does, and that much can be determined from the film. You don't need to have a Masters degree in chemistry to understand how Blackwood is accomplishing his feats.

 

[Infinity9999x]

I could maybe see it with Holmes, given how jealous he is of Watson's fiance, but if it is there it is definitely one-sided. More likely there are just heterosexual partners and Holmes is just so cut off from society that he is terrified of losing the one human being on earth that he actually has a personal relationship with.

Exactly. It's the same as the House/Wilson relationship. And that makes sense, given how the House creators are very open about the fact that House is more or less a new Sherlock Holmes interpretation with a twist.

 

[nogap87]

Saw the movie. I give it an 8 mostly because of the chemistry between RDJ and Jude Law. It didn't have the most coherent fight scenes but they were miles better than BB, TDK and the Transformers films. I agree with others about Rachel McAdams character being underwhelming. She was only there to keep the plot moving and nothing more.

 

[TNC9852002]

Saw the movie. I give it an 8 mostly because of the chemistry between RDJ and Jude Law. It didn't have the most coherent fight scenes but they were miles better than BB, TDK and the Transformers films. I agree with others about Rachel McAdams character being underwhelming. She was only there to keep the plot moving and nothing more.

 

[Heretic]

I'm not buying into the "it doesnt matter how all of the events in the film happened" nonsense. That IS the film. If we can just brush all of that away with a simple "I'm sure the bad guy had some way of doing it" then what's the point?

Star Wars: Luke Skywalker gets some way to defeat the Empire, and finds out that Dart Vader is his father.

The Matrix: Neo figures out a way to beat the robots who have done something with humans, though it doesn't matter what they did.

Titanic: An unsinkable boat somehow sinks...but it doesnt matter how.

Avatar: a crippled marine turns into a blue alien. How that happens is neither here nor there.

In order to make yourself seem as smart as Sherlock, you are dumbing the movie down to it's very basic elements which no one ever does.

 

[Infinity9999x]

Well, honestly, if we're only ranking fight scenes, I might agree.

BB does not have good fight scenes. I'm a huge Batfan, but you have to admit that they weren't the best. The shaky cam was worse than the Bourne-movies.

TDK was better, but not by much. Holmes' fights were much easier to follow. And the Transformer fight scenes were too hard to understand unless Optimus was fighting someone. I could barely tell the robots apart. (Can't speak on ROTF, since I haven't seen it yet).

 

[nogap87]

Problem?

 

[TNC9852002]

Well, honestly, if we're only ranking fight scenes, I might agree.

BB does not have good fight scenes. I'm a huge Batfan, but you have to admit that they weren't the best. The shaky cam was worse than the Bourne-movies.

TDK was better, but not by much. Holmes' fights were much easier to follow. And the Transformer fight scenes were too hard to understand unless Optimus was fighting someone. I could barely tell the robots apart. (Can't speak on ROTF, since I haven't seen it yet).

I think there's a lot more than goes into what makes a good fight scene than just the ability "to follow" them, so, that's what I knew this guy was going with and I disagree with. I understand what was meant, but I don't think it's one of the biggest factors of what makes a good fight scene.

Furthermore, to imply that all fight scenes should be shot, choreographed, lit, and paced in a certain, clear, and organized fashion really goes against what a real fight is. And even when it doesn't, there are some instances where you can't compare a fight between 30 foot tall mechanical machines in a war zone with a fight with two men in a small room.

So, the points you guys made were somewhat valid, but I don't think they're fair at all.

 

[Infinity9999x]

I'm not buying into the "it doesnt matter how all of the events in the film happened" nonsense. That IS the film. If we can just brush all of that away with a simple "I'm sure the bad guy had some way of doing it" then what's the point?

Star Wars: Luke Skywalker gets some way to defeat the Empire, and finds out that Dart Vader is his father.

The Matrix: Neo figures out a way to beat the robots who have done something with humans, though it doesn't matter what they did.

Titanic: An unsinkable boat somehow sinks...but it doesnt matter how.

Avatar: a crippled marine turns into a blue alien. How that happens is neither here nor there.

In order to make yourself seem as smart as Sherlock, you are dumbing the movie down to it's very basic elements which no one ever does.

I don't know where you're getting that. You were saying you had to be a chemistry major to understand how Blackwood was doing what he did, which really isn't true at all.

Spoiler

Pretty much everyone knows he's faking what he does, so we're all trying to guess how he does it.

The paralyzing poison that mimics death has been used in movies for years. Heck, it was just used in Wolverine Origins, so that wasn't too hard to figure out. The man bursting into flame was somewhat tricky, but I assume he planted some sort of a combustible chemical on the guy at some point. With the father I assumed it was some kind of chemical in the water.

I didn't know what exact kinds of chemicals it would be, but I figured it had to be something like that.

The Hound of the Baskervilles is the same. I didn't know what kind of chemical compound the guy was using to make the hound glow, but I figured he was using some sort of chemical.

It's the same as the House example. I have no idea what the heck they're talking about most of the time on that show. I don't know exactly what each sickness is that they're talking about, but it doesn't limit my enjoyment of the show.

 

[Infinity9999x]

I think there's a lot more than goes into what makes a good fight scene than just the ability "to follow" them, so, that's what I knew this guy was going with and I disagree with. I understand what was meant, but I don't think it's one of the biggest factors of what makes a good fight scene.

Furthermore, to imply that all fight scenes should be shot, choreographed, lit, and paced in a certain, clear, and organized fashion really goes against what a real fight is. And even when it doesn't, there are some instances where you can't compare a fight between 30 foot tall mechanical machines in a war zone with a fight with two men in a small room.

So, the points you guys made were somewhat valid, but I don't think they're fair at all.

I get what you're saying, but at some point, one must realize that it's a movie, and if I can't understand what the heck is going on, I don't think it's a good fight scene.

Now, some of the fights in Transformers were okay, but with a lot of them, I couldn't tell who was fighting who, and after a while of trying to figure out who you should be rooting for, you just lose interest, and you realize you're just watching a jumble of special effects.

In which case, I'd take two men fighting in a small room any day.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Spoiler

With the father I assumed it was some kind of chemical in the water.

Spoiler

Especially since the corrupt cops had drained the water for no real reason. Holmes even brings this up right after it happens. My biggest question is how Holmes knew so much about the death of the guy on fire, since he wasn't there and he doesn't even mention that death until he is explaining it. I understood what happened to cause his death, I just don't know how Holmes found out.

 

[Shelly Godfrey]

Saw the movie. I give it an 8 mostly because of the chemistry between RDJ and Jude Law. It didn't have the most coherent fight scenes but they were miles better than BB, TDK and the Transformers films. I agree with others about Rachel McAdams character being underwhelming. She was only there to keep the plot moving and nothing more.

Really? In my opinion you can't even COMPARE the BB and TDK fight scenes to the Sherlock Holmes slow-mo messes. The

Spoiler

explosion scene

was so poorly done, it was laughable.

 

[nogap87]

I think there's a lot more than goes into what makes a good fight scene than just the ability "to follow" them, so, that's what I knew this guy was going with and I disagree with. I understand what was meant, but I don't think it's one of the biggest factors of what makes a good fight scene.

Furthermore, to imply that all fight scenes should be shot, choreographed, lit, and paced in a certain, clear, and organized fashion really goes against what a real fight is. And even when it doesn't, there are some instances where you can't compare a fight between 30 foot tall mechanical machines in a war zone with a fight with two men in a small room.

I was supposed to get all that from ""?

Anyway, I'm not a big fan a the "shaky camera technique" and I go to see an action movie to see action. Not to decipher who is hitting who based on closeups that are too close and various grunting sounds. I'm not interested in seeing "real fights" when I go to a movie. I want to see something I can clearly follow but can't see in real life.

 

[TheComicbookKid]

My girlfriend and I had an hour-long discussion about that after the film. I mentioned the Brad Pitt rumor to her and her reaction was "HELL NO!" While I don't share those exact sentiments, I do have to admit that I'm not sure Pitt is right for the role. I do like him and I wouldn't be opposed to seeing him as another character in the series, but I don't think he's right for the Professor.

A few actors we considered...

Liam Neeson
Jason Isaacs
Stellan Skarsgaard
Ian McShane
DANIEL DAY LEWIS (this probably would never happen, but just imagine it)
James Frain
Rufus Sewell

Probably go with Christian McKay from Me and Orson Welles(he played Orson)

 

[Infinity9999x]

Really? In my opinion you can't even COMPARE the BB and TDK fight scenes to the Sherlock Holmes slow-mo messes. The

Spoiler

explosion scene

was so poorly done, it was laughable.

I don't see what was poorly done about it. I thought it was fine. And BB's fights were largely a mess. It's never good if you have to work to try and figure out what's going on. I don't think they're quite as bad as some make them out to be, but they certainly weren't good. TDK's weren't as bad, but they weren't anything special either.

Kahran Ramsus,

I just assumed that

Spoiler

Holmes had been asked to examine the death at some point, or at least had been told about it. It is a bit of a plot hole, but nothing that really distracted me too much

 

[TNC9852002]

I get what you're saying, but at some point, one must realize that it's a movie, and if I can't understand what the heck is going on, I don't think it's a good fight scene.

Now, some of the fights in Transformers were okay, but with a lot of them, I couldn't tell who was fighting who, and after a while of trying to figure out who you should be rooting for, you just lose interest, and you realize you're just watching a jumble of special effects.

In which case, I'd take two men fighting in a small room any day.

Screw BB and TDK for trying to do something different. The same with Bourne and Transformers...(since you brought those up)

I think those styles tried different techniques in combining the traditional slow, sprawled out and cleaned fighting scenes, with the shaky, intense and close-up scramble and sloppy destructive nature of real fighting. I suppose it's more of a personal thing, but I think it's catching on. I thought there was a bit of that in the first fight scene in Sherlock Holmes. Not so much shaky cam work, though.

 

[nogap87]

Really? In my opinion you can't even COMPARE the BB and TDK fight scenes to the Sherlock Holmes slow-mo messes. The

Spoiler

explosion scene

was so poorly done, it was laughable.

I had no idea what Batman was doing in BB. It was better in TDK but one scene looked like they were taking turns punching each other.

I liked the

Spoiler

explosion scene

but I can see why people would have a problem with it.

 

[TNC9852002]

Like I just mentioned, it was entirely intentional for SOME of the fight scenes in BB to be sloppy, up-close, destructive and fast, in an attempt to mimic the feeling of a real fight. Of course, those used to traditional movie fight choreography would find it troublesome. I never had a problem with it, but since day one here on these boards, it's been a neverending debate.

 

[nogap87]

Screw BB and TDK for trying to do something different. The same with Bourne and Transformers...(since you brought those up).

The Bourne movies used the shaky cam better than the Batman and Transformer films IMO.

 

[nogap87]

Like I just mentioned, it was entirely intentional for SOME of the fight scenes in BB to be sloppy, up-close, destructive and fast, in an attempt to mimic the feeling of a real fight. Of course, those used to traditional movie fight choreography would find it troublesome. I never had a problem with it, but since day one here on these boards, it's been a neverending debate.

Honestly, I probably wouldn't have cared about how the fight scenes were filmed if it weren't for all the hype about Bale learning a different fighting style for the movie.

 

[Kurosawa]

Just saw it, thought it was great. Nothing is better then seeing great actors doing their thing well.

 

[Heretic]

I don't know where you're getting that. You were saying you had to be a chemistry major to understand how Blackwood was doing what he did, which really isn't true at all.

Spoiler

Pretty much everyone knows he's faking what he does, so we're all trying to guess how he does it.

The paralyzing poison that mimics death has been used in movies for years. Heck, it was just used in Wolverine Origins, so that wasn't too hard to figure out. The man bursting into flame was somewhat tricky, but I assume he planted some sort of a combustible chemical on the guy at some point. With the father I assumed it was some kind of chemical in the water.

I didn't know what exact kinds of chemicals it would be, but I figured it had to be something like that.

The Hound of the Baskervilles is the same. I didn't know what kind of chemical compound the guy was using to make the hound glow, but I figured he was using some sort of chemical.

It's the same as the House example. I have no idea what the heck they're talking about most of the time on that show. I don't know exactly what each sickness is that they're talking about, but it doesn't limit my enjoyment of the show.

I guess we just have different ideas of mystery movie entertainment. I want the story to make sense to me and the reveals to be smart but work within the context of the film.

You dont care about the details of the mystery at all...the bad guy did it somehow, and how he did it doesnt matter. You are more in it for the plot and dont require the information required to solve the mystery be given in the film. It is the general story that entertains you, not the details.

For me, Sherlock Holmes fell flat because I was expecting a mystery, when it was really an action film with no mystery at all for me to solve.

 

[TheVileOne]

The thing is though, they actually had a person acting and speaking as Moriarty in this movie. And to tease us like that and even say his name and not give us a spicy reveal felt like a cheat. For example, it would've been like DEAD MAN'S CHEST ending with all the characters looking surprised at who has come down the stairs and the movie just stops there.

 

[VenomVsSpidey]

The thing is though, they actually had a person acting and speaking as Moriarty in this movie. And to tease us like that and even say his name and not give us a spicy reveal felt like a cheat. For example, it would've been like DEAD MAN'S CHEST ending with all the characters looking surprised at who has come down the stairs and the movie just stops there.

the difference is though, this movie was actually good.

 

[The Sage]

Loved this movie. RDJ and Jude Law were an excellent combination. up: