Now wait just a cotton-pickin' minute. Sherlock Holmes is the whole archetype of the armchair detective. Reinventing him as an action hero is ridiculous. What's the point of having Watson around if Holmes is getting his hands dirty himself?
That said, Holmes is and always has been obnoxious. House was based on him, after all, so it isn't so strange to see Downey playing him with a House-like attitude.
I wonder if they'll include his drug addiction? And if Watson will be as much an enabler as Wilson is for House.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Yeah. I'm not pleased with the action-hero look either. And he just does not LOOK like Holmes to me.
I do like the attitude, Holmes always had an attitude.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
I'm having problems with my connection. Have they kept the cocaine use?
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
sigh... SherlockHolmes was the EXTREME opposite of an armchair detective. In the ConanDoyle stories, he was an excellent climber, pugilist, swordsman, marksman, etc as well as the first Western protagonist known for his mastery of Eastern hand-to-hand combat and stick-fighting. It was only when HaysCode Hollywood decided to totally reinvent Holmes to comply with "acceptable behaviour" that he became a gentlemanly nerd.
"What's the point of having Watson around if Holmes is getting his hands dirty himself?"
Name an instance of Watson getting his hands dirty. Now contrast that record with Holmes disguising himself as various "riff-raff" to obtain leads unavailable to "acceptable society". And the fact that he had many friends "in low places".
[ May 19, 2009, 04:42 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
Doyle's Holmes really wasn't much of a Victorian gentlemen, it's true.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Yeah, Watson was there as someone Holmes could talk to, and a straight man to ask the dumb questions readers want to ask, not as any significant hand-dirtier. He was a pal, not a henchman.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
True. That would be closer to the Poirot-Hastings relationship. Now there was an armchair detective -- at least in the earlier stories.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Yeah, Homes is NOT a lazy guy with a pipe, and anyone reading him as such...well, hasn't read him at all, just seen Hollywood knockoffs, I guess.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
I'm worried about this movie...
However accurate it may be to the work of Conan Doyle, people are going to look at this and think "what the hell?!?" because it goes contrary to every Hollywood representation of Sherlock Holmes in the first place.
I hope someone will come out and clarify that, yeah, he really was like that (to a point).
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Makes me want to read some Sherlock Holmes. How was Doyle as a writer? Interesting? Dry?
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
If you haven't seen the above actor (Jeremy Brett) do Sherlock, you are missing the definitive Holmes. There's plenty on YouTube for your enjoyment. Avoid the excessively corny tribute videos, though.
Now, Brett's Holmes wasn't an action hero in the above sense of the word, but nor was he a Poirot-style armchair detective. He was a gentleman, but an eccentric, ready to do what was necessary.
This trailer is very meh for me. All modern films seem to have the same trailer, with the same music, with the same script, the same low gravelly voices, the same kind of modern jokes, regardless of the time period.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
I think it looks fantastic -- and this is coming from a person who read and re-read every Sherlock Holmes story (written by Doyle, anyway) several times before she was even a teen.
The best thing about Holmes was always his attitude, and the way people reacted to his nonconformity. He was my second literary crush.
This could be awesome.
(Though I agree that Jeremy Brett will always be my One True Holmes.)
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: the same kind of modern jokes, regardless of the time period.
Ribald jokes didn't exist in Victorian times? Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nighthawk: I'm worried about this movie...
However accurate it may be to the work of Conan Doyle, people are going to look at this and think "what the hell?!?" because it goes contrary to every Hollywood representation of Sherlock Holmes in the first place.
I hope someone will come out and clarify that, yeah, he really was like that (to a point).
I'd be that person if they ever made a decent Frankenstein movie. I hate what Hollywood has done to him, with the exception of Mel Brooks, you have to have a heart of stone to hate Mel Brooks.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Makes me want to read some Sherlock Holmes.
You never have?!?
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
does anyone remember the less than successful "Young Sherlock Holmes" of the mid 80's? I thoroughly enjoyed it and the stained glass knight was one of Pixar's first works.
Anyhow, that Sherlock Holmes had a good bit of action to it.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Doyle's Holmes really wasn't much of a Victorian gentlemen, it's true.
Well, on the whole I'd say you were right. Holmes always was something of a cherry-picker. In certain areas, he was though very 'Victorian'.
Also, aspectre and others have it right. Holmes was a man of action-when on a case or somehow interested in something (which was almost always a case, or science). When he wasn't, though, he was either extremely bored and lazy, and if it was bad enough, high.
As for Watson, he 'got his hands dirty', but I can't recall an instance where he did so and Holmes didn't also. In fact, Holmes went further than Watson would've liked on more than one occasion. For example in the Blue Carbuncle and the one about the blackmailer, Milverton I think his name was. An example of Holmes's active status can be found, among other places, in the Final Problem and the Solitary Cyclist.
Lyrhawn, you should totally read some Holmes immediately:) The short stories make for easy reads, there's quite a bit of humor, and the intrigue - for me at least - remains compelling even after many re-reads. The glimpses into England of the time are also repeatedly fascinating.
Teshi, I'm right there with you on Brett as Holmes. I was just a kid when I watched those, and I remember being very sad when I learned he died, and there wouldn't be anymore of his Holmes (still makes me sad, to be honest).
quote:Anyhow, that Sherlock Holmes had a good bit of action to it.
Seen it and enjoyed it:)
---
I'll see the film, of course. I mean, that's a given. However, if the trailer can serve as a judge, I'll have to really compartmentalize things between 'Sherlock Holmes, Doyle' and 'Sherlock Holmes, 21st century major Hollywood movie' if I'm to enjoy it at all. Because the 21st century Hollywood movie Holmes...well, doesn't look like a very faithful (qualitatively) transposition to me.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Yeah, it's not Holmes having adventures I object to (he so definitely did, physical ones at that, often); it's that this Holmes seems to lack Holmes' restraint and, for lack of a better word, composture (sure he lost it some times but Holmes was almost always in control, supremely in control.)
Lyr, my favorite Holmes (and Doyle's, and contemporary readers', for that matter) is "The Speckled Band." If you need a place to start. I'd definitely start with the short stories, not the novels.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: I'd definitely start with the short stories, not the novels.
Thirded!
Posted by Grinwell (Member # 12030) on :
This movie could be great or a disaster. But it already looks more interesting than Guy Ritchie's last 3 movies. It seems to have been made with the same freewheeling spirit as the new Star Trek movie, which I thought was great. So fingers crossed.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
I prefer Nero Wolfe.
Posted by manji (Member # 11600) on :
Updated trailer.
Posted by Trent Destian (Member # 11653) on :
I prefered the first one. They aren't much different, but I still enjoyed it more.
Over the course of the last couple of years I realized something...I'm a dork for good movie trailers. Not trailers of good movies, good movie trailers.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Can I just say that I get thoroughly annoyed when they take lines from different parts of a movie and juxtapose them together into a new gag.
I don't find it very funny, it's like they're saying, "Our script writers were actually quite incapable of writing anything intrinsically funny, so instead our brilliant trailer editors stepped in!"
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
No problem with the action at all, but very disturbed at Holmes' apparent recklessness and especially the hints at romantic encounters. Holmes had no romantic life -- "The Woman" doesn't count and his control, as mentioned above, was legendary. And while ribald humor was popular in those days, it never appeared in Doyle's stories and seems very out of place here.
Watson was brought along for a sounding board, to document particularly interesting crimes, for medical expertise, and occasionally as backup ("Bring your revolver, Watson!). But I can't think of any time he did the dirty work instead of Holmes.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
I'm not a purist as far as Holmes goes. It looks like fun. We'll see what the reviews think.
ADD: "This preview has been approved for APPROPRIATE AUDIENCES"? When did they get rid of "all audiences"? And why didn't I notice before?
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
It may be inaccurate but it sure looks fun.
Posted by The Reader (Member # 3636) on :
It looks like crap. I don't like my Sherlock to be like Bruce Willis. I like Bruce Willis to be like Bruce Willis. There is plenty of adventure in the stories without adding 4 story leaps from windows into the Thames.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
Oh, it's not Sherlock Holmes by any stretch of the imagination, but it looks like fun. I'll see it. I'll just have to pretend his name is Sheerluck Holmes, or something.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
But, it's robert downey jr being like robert downey jr.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
I'd definitely start with the short stories, not the novels.