Next time you watch an episode of House that shows him at home, pay attention to his apartment number - 221B :)
For the record, Guy Ritchie’s involvement interests me more than the cast’s. He’s been off his game for a while, but Rocknrolla was pretty alright, and he hasn’t yet cashed in all of my goodwill.
AARRGHGHHHHHHH It has been staring me in the face for all these years!!! I never put House and Sherlock together… AARGHHH I say!
I haven’t felt this way since… well… since this.
Right, which is pretty far from being a bad choice. I know how you meant it, I’m just surprised you said it in that context. Are you arguing about the possible creative merits of a film you know little about or are you debating marketing strategies? You seem to regard them as one and the same.
I guess I just assumed you were asking the question about the popular appeal somewhat rhetorically, and were more interested in the sort of explanation that is being provided here of what the deal is with the movie.
Maybe it works, if so, that’s great. I don’t see Holmes in that light I really have a hard time building any sort of enthusiasm about the movie. If it weren’t for the cast, I wouldn’t even consider it. Hence, I wondered what motivated anyone else that was interested in the movie.
So far, I’ve heard pretty resoundingly, the cast. I haven’t heard anything about how brilliant a creative choice it was to envision Holmes as an action hero.
You’ve stated yourself that Holmes as envisioned in all of his previous renditions has barely crossed your radar in the past. The strength of the stories, as the tv series pointed to in this thread so clearly delineates, is in the characters rather than the ludicrously contrived mysteries and their idiotic solutions.
I’m saying, who cares what the general perception of the character is? Holmes has been adapted many times in many ways, sometimes serious, sometimes comedic, sometimes in the future, sometimes as a kid, sometimes as a robot, sometimes, apparently, as an asshole doctor with a limp. So now we’ll have one where Holmes can kick some ass, which Doyle said he could anyway. I don’t see the big deal.
You wouldn’t really get excited about “Orphan Annie: The Ass Kicking Years”.
Sure I would. Assuming it’s well done, I’m up for most figures from literary history or popular culture having some ass kicking adventures.
The point is I don’t think most people are going to identify with an action hero Holmes and so it won’t resonate.
The box office will tell I guess. I had a couple female friends mention their eagerness to see it just this afternoon. Robert Downey jr and Jude Law, bantering back and forth and getting into scrapes? They’re there.
So am I.
The highlight of my acting career was being Moriarty in a house play at school (houses would put on plays/ concerts to entertain other houses) so I feel I am uniquely qualified to comment.
Moriarty is awesome. He’s the Joker to Holme’s Batman.
The guy that shot him in the season 2 finale was named Moriarty :)
ISWYDT.
I trust Downey Jr. to make a fun movie. Not sure about Ritchie or Law. I also trust McAdams, though, and McAdams + Downey Jr = I too am… up.
Also, yeah, people don’t give a shit about Holmes generally these days – only beardy monocled types are all grognardistic about deerstalkers and cerebrality. I expect the flick to do quite well exactly as is.
Yeah all that’s really left is for us to discover that House has an even smarter brother.
So far the biggest difference is that House wants to do sex to Dr. Cuddy. Holmes doesn’t seem to care much for it.
House – Home (Holmes)… ugh
Holmes’ lack of a sex drive could be a side effect of coke addiction, right?
It’s been said several times already, but you are confusing Arthur Conan Doyle with Agatha Christie. Conan Doyle really wrote adventure stories with a crime theme, rather than cerebral mysteries. Hercule Poirot and Miss Marple were happy to let the police do all the field work while they were sitting and thinking. Holmes never trusted police work, he always went out to do his own investigations where possible, and quite often in an illegal fashion or in rough neighborhoods. Many times he asked Watson to bring along his revolver, and they needed it too. There’s certainly lots of action implied in the stories, and sometimes explicitly described.
I thought the film was supposed to be a huge departure from the script due to quite a number of reshoots, no?
Also, Robert Downey Jr. is absolutely miscast and Guy Ritchie is rather unfitting. Peter Saarsgard should be playing Holmes in a Wes Anderson directed film.
RDJ is never miscast in anything.
Hugh Laurie gave an interview on (I think) Jonathan Ross saying they have considered that, and it’s still in the cards in the future. If that happens, it’s gonna be Stephen Fry <3
I am so with you on this, and stupefied that were in an apparent minority. Theres some great physical action in the Doyle stories, and Rachel McAdams in fishnets is spankerrific dont get me wrong, but Holmes is GAUNT and his whole raison detre is intellect. Nothing in the trailers suggests this. Remotely. Can`t wait to see how they handle the cocaine.
Most trailers speaks to the lowest common denominator, i.e. graphical violence, sex and explosions… The action sequences shown could be all that there is the entire movie - thats been seen before (Deep impact trailer? Explosions, spaceships and action?)
RDJ is pretty cool in my book, especially after Ironman where he showed a darn interesting figure, even minus the suit…or rather, especially minus the suit
I’m very much looking forward to this
I think the different approach to the Holmes mythos is perfectly valid. Any and all forms of cultural fiction are open to reintepretation and reinvention once they enter the pop culture mindset. In fact, I’d say they must be constantly reimagined lest they grow stale.
Example: how many versions of Dracula have we seen? Are any of them 100% faithful to the original Stoker text? Of course not. But they’re all perfectly valid stories and (mostly) enjoyable for what they are: entertainment.
Same with Tarzan. We’ve seen the basic conceit of it (man raised by apes in the jungle) done as a pulp action film serial (the Weismuller version), a horrible WB series, a more cerebral attempt at humanizing the mythos (Greystoke), and a Disney cartoon. All of them equally valid (well, maybe not the modernized TV series) interpretations of the mythos.
Holmes is no different - there are certain parts of the character that are ingrained in pop culture that you can’t change: specifically, the cultural impact of a character focuses on what he IS, not what he is NOT.
- Holmes IS a detective. First and foremost, that is his raison d’etre.
- Holmes is smarter than you, but a bit of a social retard. He doesn’t explain his methods until the big end reveal.
- Holmes has Watson to act as a foil to him. Watson may be portrayed as either an everyman, a bumbling comedy foil, or as someone equally competent to Holmes in his own way.
All these interpretations are valid BECAUSE popular culture has made them so. The inclusion of Holmes baritsu (RL version is bartitsu, which sounds vaguely porny) in the Ritchie version definitely has a basis in the original canon, and it’s never been excluded by the common perception of Holmes. I don’t think any version of him has forwarded the notion that Holmes is a fop or a wimp - he’s always been competent in that regard.
I, for one, will be at the theater on Christmas morning to see this version. Looks awesome - and Awesome trumps everything else.
As appealing as this is, Holmes doesn’t have any estranged family to reconnect with, so it won’t happen.