1182 replies to this topic

[Arbogast777]

ComingSoon.net just put up a great collection of pics from the movie...

[zencat]

Some good news for us Region 1ers. We're getting the surviving Cushing BBC series episodes...

Got this yesterday. Excited to start watching.

[Tybre]

Just picked it up about an hour ago myself. Have yet to watch them (doubt I'll even get to them tonight), but Cushing was always a brilliant actor, and everything I've seen from those surviving episodes is, indeed, brilliant.

[zencat]

So far I've watched A Study in Scarlet and The Boscombe Valley Mystery. Oh, and also the documentary, which was a nice surprise, I didn't know the disc included this.

I really enjoyed A Study in Scarlet. It's odd how this, the first Holmes story, doesn't get adapted all that often. I actually like it better than The Sign of Four. Even the Granada/Brett series never did A Study in Scarlet, which is great shame (and a little baffling). But having it here sort of makes up for that. This series reminds me of the Brett series in how it really tries to be faithful in all ways.

Best thing about Boscombe was he wears the deerstalker and traveling cloak throughout (as he does in the Paget illustrations of the original story). I'm a sucker for the classic look.

You know, as a kid, Cushing was my favorite Holmes. I really loved his Hammer Hound. It drove me nuts that there were all these Cushing Holmes performances that I had no way of seeing. Took a few years (okay, 30), but it's so nice to finally see them.

I'm now jonesin' to see the first episodes with Douglas Wilmer.

[Mr. Blofeld]

Did anybody ever see the Ronald Howard TV series that aired in the '50s? I've got a DVD featuring 3 episodes, and, while they're short, Howard's wonderful in the role... as is H. Marion Crawford as Watson!

[zencat]

Yes, I have seen those. They're interesting. Definitely the product of 1950s America -- Holmes filtered through an American POV -- all the cliches are in full bloom. But they are fast paced and fun.

[Arbogast777]

A lifelong Holmes fan, I had NO idea until this morning that one of the largest Sherlock Holmes collections in the world is about 10mins from me at the University of Minnesota!

Link to article

It's open to the public by appointment, so I'm definitely going to have to go...

"Los Angeles attorney Les Klinger, who wrote "The Annotated Sherlock Holmes" series and was a consultant on the new movie, has donated his papers to the university's collection. Klinger calls Minnesota's collection the 'first stop for anybody doing research, because if you're looking for something, it's probably in the collection.'"

[Mr. Blofeld]

Yes, I have seen those. They're interesting. Definitely the product of 1950s America -- Holmes filtered through an American POV -- all the cliches are in full bloom. But they are fast paced and fun.

I've heard the meeting of Holmes and Watson in the first episode is nearly identical to their meeting in A Study in Scarlet, and, overall, it is a very good episode.

[marktmurphy]

I'm now jonesin' to see the first episodes with Douglas Wilmer.

Saw a couple of those at the British Film Institute a couple of years back with Douglas himself along in attendance. They were very decent things; nothing outstanding but well-done and he made a good Holmes.

[Royal Dalton]

I think Wilmer was the best Holmes. It's a shame he didn't do more episodes, but the BBC cut back on the (already short) rehearsal time for the second series, so he turned it down.

The BBC should really get a move on and bring his series out on DVD before it's too late for him to contribute to it. It would be nice if they put 'The Man Who Loved Sherlock Holmes' on there as an extra, as well.

[Arbogast777]

HERE'S the entire "Sherlock Holmes" score by Hans Zimmer available for listen!

[Arbogast777]

...and after having listened to it now I have to say thank you Warner Brothers for helping me not spend $9.99 at iTunes next week

[Jackanaples]

I liked it quite a bit. It's not the score I was expecting at all, but is rather eccentric and bold. I especially love when the violin kicks in on some tracks.

People tend to view Sherlock in the same way that classical music is presented: Like some sort of museum piece. Doing so robs both of their vitality and imaginative fire.

Just once I'd like to hear a deejay on a classical music station talk about the composers or musicians with the same passion that Alex had for Beethoven in A CLOCKWORK ORANGE. You know, someone who could convey the excitement and genius and madness that touched a few and left us with the music.

Arthur Conan Doyle wrote Sherlock Holmes as for The Strand Magazine. It may be considered literature now but when he wrote it it was nothing more than Victorian pulp.

I think Doyle would approve of the upcoming movie. If the script is anything to go by it succeeds admirably. It's Victorian pulp for the 21st century. Which makes perfect sense, as that's the audience that's going to see it.

[Arbogast777]

I think Doyle would approve of the upcoming movie. If the script is anything to go by it succeeds admirably. It's Victorian pulp for the 21st century. Which makes perfect sense, as that's the audience that's going to see it.

Well put

[Sniperscope]

I think Doyle would approve of the upcoming movie. If the script is anything to go by it succeeds admirably. It's Victorian pulp for the 21st century. Which makes perfect sense, as that's the audience that's going to see it.

Well put

Seriously? You're having a laugh surely? I'm not going to get into the pros and cons of the new film but to claim Conan Doyle would approve is a real stretch of the imagination! It's fine if you like the look of the upcoming film but to claim to speak for Conan Doyle is a ludicous assertion based on no other fact than your own personal tastes. The fallacy here is that you associate the writer with the journal in which it was published - Doyle I would not be surprised went with whichever magazine would publish him for the best fee - especially early on before Holmes reached his apogee.
The notion that The Strand was "Victorian pulp" is dubious. Today with postmodern revision it is certainly that but in Doyle's day The Strand was a literate illustrated journal aimed at the middle classes- which was a perfect vehicle for the material he wrote. Actually, when Doyle tried to kill off Holmes in The Final Problem there was a national outcry. I hardly imagine the same would occur for any sundry penny dreadful character (such as his imitator Sexton Blake). The film is one thing, Doyle is another. There is no need to validate Richie's version against the original- it's impossible. Allow the film to stand on it's own merits without recourse to re-animating Conan Doyle.

Edited by Sniperscope, 19 December 2009 - 06:40 AM.

[Jackanaples]

When actor/playwright William Gillette asked Doyle if it was okay to marry Holmes off at the end of the production he was putting on Doyle's response was, "You may marry him, or murder or do what you like with him." Doyle knew a wildly popular stage play (as it certainly was at the time) wasn't going to take away from his stories. He understood that they were two separate things. With that in mind I think it safe to say that since this movie takes fewer liberties (or at least more logical ones) with the character --he'd be okay with it.

I'm not basing my opinion of what I think the movie will be simply from the look of it in trailers. I've read the screenplay, and it was a cracking read. They've made some changes since then, but the majority of those have been to add more Doyle-isms into it.

When I said The Strand was pulp, I wasn't denigrating it. It was popular entertainment of the day. People loved Holmes and even went in mourning when Doyle killed him off, but even Doyle himself thought it was minor and far from his important work. He thought he'd be remembered for his historical novels Micah Clarke (?) and The White Company or perhaps his Professor Challenger stories.

An important thing to keep in mind is Doyle designed the Sherlock Holmes stories to sell. He was a working writer, and while interested in crafting each "adventure" to the best of his abilities, his main interest was to keep his audience (and publisher) coming back for more.

Holmes wasn't considered literature at the time. It was the Harry Potter of its day. Wildly popular fiction, for everyone. It of course was literature, as so much pulp often is (Dashiell Hammett, Robert E. Howard, Raymond Chandler, Alexandre Dumas, etc.).

Edited by Jackanaples, 19 December 2009 - 09:15 AM.

[Sniperscope]

When actor/playwright William Gillette asked Doyle if it was okay to marry Holmes off at the end of the production he was putting on Doyle's response was, "You may marry him, or murder or do what you like with him." Doyle knew a wildly popular stage play (as it certainly was at the time) wasn't going to take away from his stories. He understood that they were two separate things. With that in mind I think it safe to say that since this movie takes fewer liberties (or at least more logical ones) with the character --he'd be okay with it.

I'm not basing my opinion of what I think the movie will be simply from the look of it in trailers. I've read the screenplay, and it was a cracking read. They've made some changes since then, but the majority of those have been to add more Doyle-isms into it.

When I said The Strand was pulp, I wasn't denigrating it. It was popular entertainment of the day. People loved Holmes and even went in mourning when Doyle killed him off, but even Doyle himself thought it was minor and far from his important work. He thought he'd be remembered for his historical novels Micah Clarke (?) and The White Company or perhaps his Professor Challenger stories.

An important thing to keep in mind is Doyle designed the Sherlock Holmes stories to sell. He was a working writer, and while interested in crafting each "adventure" to the best of his abilities, his main interest was to keep his audience (and publisher) coming back for more.

Holmes wasn't considered literature at the time. It was the Harry Potter of its day. Wildly popular fiction, for everyone. It of course was literature, as so much pulp often is (Dashiell Hammett, Robert E. Howard, Raymond Chandler, Alexandre Dumas, etc.).

No need to tell your grandmother how to suck eggs! I had already made the point about Doyle going after the quid, the public outcry at Holmes' "death" and indeed I had also pointed out that Richie's film and Doyle's work are very much different entities, neither of which affects the other. Doyle's comment I think was borne out of the personal contempt he seemed to have held for the character, especially as the 20th century dawned. If this enmity of Doyle's is reason enough for you to justify Richie's interpretation, then fair enough.
Your misuse of "pulp" however has an implication far beyond that of "popular fiction" - the authors you mention, with the exception of Dumas, are rightly "pulp" writers - but the term is more a reference to it's mode of production and publication than its quality, which you are no doubt aware. Really though, why bother even defining anything as literature (with a capital) anyway? Pointless exercise which says more about the definer than the defined!
Finally, I call nonsense on Holmes being the Harry Potter of its day! Why strike an irrelevant contemporary comparison? Holmes is Holmes. He needs suffer no competitor. The Christian Victorian readers of The Strand seemed to have a strong faith in scientific progress, middle-class virtues and Britain's place in the world and would I am sure have roundly scoffed at the immature neo-paganism of Rowling's work.

Edited by Sniperscope, 19 December 2009 - 10:40 AM.

[Jackanaples]

My point is that Doyle wasn't as "precious" about Holmes as many of his fans are. As far as the literature vs. Literature debate goes, we're probably on the same side. I was using it to illustrate changing attitudes re: how people saw Holmes then (very popular fiction) vs. now (most famous character in all of fiction, but sadly a museum piece).

My comparison between Holmes and Harry Potter was simply one of their popularity in the times they were written. I think it's a fair comparison. You may not like Harry Potter; that's fine. But it's the closest thing to what must have been the "Holmes phenomenon" in Victorian times that we've seen in the last forty years.

As for "Victorian pulp", well that might just be how I view Holmes. Yes, the term was used initially to describe the printing process for cheap magazines in the first half of the 20th century, but the term "pulp" has altered since then to also refer to the sort of lurid, exciting subject matter covered in such publications.

When you consider the Holmes canon and its outre murders, hidden treasures, criminal masterminds, ciphers, ghostly hounds, and revenge plots that make them up... what else would you call it? That's definitely pulpy.

It's a term that allows me at least to appreciate the thing anew.

Edited by Jackanaples, 19 December 2009 - 11:35 AM.

[Sniperscope]

My point is that Doyle wasn't as "precious" about Holmes as many of his fans are. As far as the literature vs. Literature debate goes, we're probably on the same side. I was using it to illustrate changing attitudes re: how people saw Holmes then (very popular fiction) vs. now (most famous character in all of fiction, but sadly a museum piece).

My comparison between Holmes and Harry Potter was simply one of their popularity in the times they were written. I think it's a fair comparison. You may not like Harry Potter; that's fine. But it's the closest thing to what must have been the "Holmes phenomenon" in Victorian times that we've seen in the last forty years.

As for "Victorian pulp", well that might just be how I view Holmes. But when you consider the outre murders, hidden treasures, criminal masterminds, ciphers, ghostly hounds, and revenge plots that make up the stories... what else would you call it? It's a term that allows me at least to appreciate the thing anew.

You may see it as "Victorian pulp" with the benefit of 120 years of hindsight - but it should always be noted that even the most outre cases (such as the ghostly hound or the Sussex Vampire) all had scientifically proven, wholly rational answers, which Holmes (and Doyle) took some delight in exposing as very human. Edgar Poe's Murder in the Rue Morgue is faaaar more pulpish than anything Doyle ever penned - murders committed by an enraged orangutang!!!

HG Wells or Jules Verne may be more correctly "Victorian Pulp", especially in terms of their publication and reception but really the term is a modern reinterpretation of the era (by way of, for example, The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, or even the Beatles' Sgt. Pepper album cover! ) than an accurate description of its likely historical and cultural context. A revenge plot is not "pulp", neither are ciphers or hidden treasure! All of these things may have been appropriated into "pulp" in the ensuing decades or have become so overused that we see them as "pulp" today, but in themselves they are simply classic tropes of fiction. Although, I will grant you, the idea of a criminal mastermind / evil antithesis of Holmes in Moriarty would appear "pulpish" but of course he never recurred in the series which does tend to invalidate him as a classic pulp villain in the vein of, say, Fu Manchu or some such, who could be conveniently present at the last moment to thwart our hero.

Agreed, Doyle wasn't overly precious about Holmes, simply because he was tired of the character and seemed to have found it a burden and a distraction (which you had pointed out with his more "serious" work). Doyle was a testy, often contrary chap when it came to Holmes it would seem. He found Paget's (now iconic) drawings to be inaccurate enough from his vision for him to quibble. Yet I suspect when Gillette was playing the role, Doyle was at the end of his patience with the the character (c.1900), hence his rather cavalier remark.

Edited by Sniperscope, 19 December 2009 - 12:13 PM.

[Tybre]

I've read the screenplay, and it was a cracking read.

Maybe you've gotten your hands on a later draft, but I read the first draft by Mike Robert Johnson and it was full of things which annoyed me immensely. My two absolute biggest problems with it, though, are 1. Sherlock Holmes is Captain Fisticuffs for a very long time, with glimmers of Sherlock Holmes peeking through every now and again. To quote myself from elsewhere,

"After Holmes and Watson head out to [redacted for very minor not all that spoiler-y spoilers but spoilers nonetheless so adieu], the film is feeling more Sherlock Holmes. It feels more like an amusing twist on Holmes, like those old Basil Rathbone films where it was Sherlock Holmes vs. Nazis, but it does feel somewhat like Sherlock Holmes now. Sadly, this is begins on page 63. Unfortunately, we are at this point about 11/20 of the way through the script (odd number I know, about 55/100 if that makes you feel better). The film's reported running time is 139 minutes (2 hr, 19 min). That means we have about 69.5 minutes of a film that is more Captain Fisticuffs than Sherlock Holmes. This, to me, is a bit of a problem, if indeed you intend to make Sherlock Holmes and not Captain Fisticuffs. Now look, I know running time doesn't match evenly with a script, but you understand my point. For Holmes to only be Holmes-ish by the halfway point is a problem, though it fortunately doesn't result in a tonal shift."

And what was the much bigger problem for me was the fact that Mike Johnson displayed he either had no knowledge of the character whatsoever beyond what has seeped into the public consciousness and only peppered in whatever references to Doyle he skimmed off of Wikipedia or he deliberately decided to abandon the character in favor of popcorn fare. Regardless of whichever one it is, that's a bad move.

I can prattle on all day with the problems I had while reading the script.

Now, going by the trailers, a good bit has changed from the first draft. The initial scheme is still in place, but a fair number of the details are changed. I am hopeful that one of these changes is making Holmes more Holmesian. As I said elsewhere, I do not doubt Sherlock Holmes will be a good film. But as a Sherlock Holmes film, mediocre at best. I will see it, and I will very probably enjoy it while I'm watching it, but a lot of things in the script just really rub me wrong.

But I don't really want to start an argument. You liked it, you liked it. I didn't care for it too terribly much. I'll stick with the Russians and Granada and Peter Cushing, thank you, or, better yet, to Doyle himself.

Yet I suspect when Gillette was playing the role, Doyle was at the end of his patience with the the character (c.1900), hence his rather cavalier remark.

Indeed. He only brought the character back because of such an immense outcry after The Adventure of the Final Problem, and he intended for The Hound of the Baskervilles to be his last Holmes story, but again, public demand. So he went on to write the stories that comprise The Return of Sherlock Holmes and didn't write another Holmes story for quite a while -- The Valley of Fear wasn't published until 1915, one year before the first film adaptation of Holmes was made. He probably enjoyed writing even the later Holmes stories, but he made it quite clear he wanted to focus on things like the Challenger stories, Sir Nigel, Through the Magic Door, and just about everything else he had published post-Final Problem.

[Sniperscope]

Excuse me. An open rant to Guy Richie.
A quote from your august self regarding Holmes and *ahem* drugs: "In this production we marginalised the drug use. I'm not sure if audiences are ready to accept a cocaine-injecting hero."
W.
T.
F?
"ready to accept"?!?
"READY TO ACCEPT"?!?!?!
So tell me, Guy Richie, because apparently this is THE FIRST EVER SHERLOCK HOLMES MOVIE TO HAVE BEEN MADE (!), but have audiences actually DEVOLVED in the last 120 years?
Why were Victorian/Edwadian readers from class-ridden, conservative, religious, middle-class backgrounds able to accept such a heinous DRUGGIE and yet apparently we in the cynical, all-knowing, NO-LIMITS-TO-ANYTHING 21st century CAN'T COPE with a character who, dare I suggest, IS MORE THAN ONE DIMENSIONAL? Who has an ACTUAL FAILING IN THEIR CHARACTER?
Rubbish Richie! Total TOSSPOTTERY!
Admit it man - you're not doing Holmes at all - you're making a NICE SAFE POPCORN STUFFER that has ZERO relationship to Sherlock Holmes as Sir Arthur Conan Doyle wrote it! End of!

*Phew* OK! I've got that out of my system. It's been bothering me for a while! Thanks all for putting up with that!

I can prattle on all day with the problems I had while reading the script.

Now, going by the trailers, a good bit has changed from the first draft. The initial scheme is still in place, but a fair number of the details are changed. I am hopeful that one of these changes is making Holmes more Holmesian. As I said elsewhere, I do not doubt Sherlock Holmes will be a good film. But as a Sherlock Holmes film, mediocre at best. I will see it, and I will very probably enjoy it while I'm watching it, but a lot of things in the script just really rub me wrong.

Agreed, and your comparison to the WW2-era Rathbone films is quite apt.
As a film I'm sure this will be good genre fare. I've liked the majority of films I have seen RDj in and Ritchie has made some excellent caper films, but it really can't be claimed as Holmesian - from the trailer it seems like a comedy / action film dressed up in Victorian England with Toulouse Lautrec and some bloke called Dr John Watson! Not that there's anything wrong with that...

Edited by Sniperscope, 19 December 2009 - 02:16 PM.

[Safari Suit]

Did he really say "cocaine-injecting"?

[Arbogast777]

Sniperscope,

I think the point that was originally trying to be made is that Sherlock Holmes was meant by Doyle to be, first and foremost, fun. That was his wish for the character above all else. In reading your posts I fear that you're taking it way to seriously. All your points are valid and solid, and the new movie may not be "Doyle approved," but Sherlock Holmes is back on the big screen - just try to have some fun with it! That is, as I think others are trying to say, what Doyle would wish for with this movie.

Cheers

[Jackanaples]

The script I read was the March 14, 2008 draft with revisions by Anthony Peckham. Is that the same one you read? I have a recent issue of Script magazine that I believe makes some of the same points you did about the first draft.

Certainly the draft I read has lots of action, but then the Holmes stories feature plenty of action too (though most of it is offscreen) and perhaps way too many Holmes sending letters and telegrams as to be visually interesting on film. There is an attempt to sort of visualize Holmes' thinking processes that I'm anxious to see if it pans out or not.

Holmes using cocaine when he's in the doldrums doesn't appear in the script I read, and quite honestly I didn't expect it too. It doesn't feature in most Holmes movies, and quite honestly carries a different cultural weight than it did at the time.

They replace it with more socially acceptable if no less damaging addictions. Alcohol for one, but other things as well that I'll not spoil. He's still a misogynist. He's still eccentric more interested in problems than people. Vain. Pompous. Brilliant.

Personally I think Jeremy Brett the finest Holmes I've ever seen. I would love to see the Russian series with Livanov but haven't yet. Clive Merrison on radio is pretty exceptional too.

That said, I don't need slavish adaptations of the canon to be happy. Plenty of that exists should one be interested. I'm also looking forward to the Steven Moffat/Mark Gatiss reinvention of Holmes the BBC is doing.

I think the movie will be fun in the spirit, if not the letter of Doyle. That's fine, as I have the entire canon here at home containing every letter Doyle wrote about the Great Detective. They're immortal.

Now lighten up please.

Edited by Jackanaples, 19 December 2009 - 04:25 PM.

[marktmurphy]

Excuse me. An open rant to Guy Richie.
A quote from your august self regarding Holmes and *ahem* drugs: "In this production we marginalised the drug use. I'm not sure if audiences are ready to accept a cocaine-injecting hero."
W.
T.
F?
"ready to accept"?!?
"READY TO ACCEPT"?!?!?!
So tell me, Guy Richie, because apparently this is THE FIRST EVER SHERLOCK HOLMES MOVIE TO HAVE BEEN MADE (!), but have audiences actually DEVOLVED in the last 120 years?
Why were Victorian/Edwadian readers from class-ridden, conservative, religious, middle-class backgrounds able to accept such a heinous DRUGGIE and yet apparently we in the cynical, all-knowing, NO-LIMITS-TO-ANYTHING 21st century CAN'T COPE with a character who, dare I suggest, IS MORE THAN ONE DIMENSIONAL? Who has an ACTUAL FAILING IN THEIR CHARACTER?
Rubbish Richie! Total TOSSPOTTERY!

Bleh. Last time we got a slight variation on Holmes with Everett's portrayal, fanboys complained there was too much drug-taking. Now it's too little. "Stop getting Holmes wrong!" etc. You'll never have the exact version in your head, or if it's Brett, you've already got it. Plus there'll be another version along in a matter of months with the BBC's new TV take. Plus there's another 'Further Adventures' on the way from BBC Radio 4 (another candidate for greatest adaptation of Holmes). Don't worry so much; it seems very silly. And if you start to worry, well the 'marry him, murder him' quote really does come in very handy.

HERE'S the entire "Sherlock Holmes" score by Hans Zimmer available for listen!

Goodness; how funny. All you need is a copy of RealPlayer and you can download that entire soundtrack with the click of a button from that page. What a strange thing to do!

[Tybre]

Excuse me. An open rant to Guy Richie.
A quote from your august self regarding Holmes and *ahem* drugs: "In this production we marginalised the drug use. I'm not sure if audiences are ready to accept a cocaine-injecting hero."
W.
T.
F?
"ready to accept"?!?
"READY TO ACCEPT"?!?!?!
So tell me, Guy Richie, because apparently this is THE FIRST EVER SHERLOCK HOLMES MOVIE TO HAVE BEEN MADE (!), but have audiences actually DEVOLVED in the last 120 years?
Why were Victorian/Edwadian readers from class-ridden, conservative, religious, middle-class backgrounds able to accept such a heinous DRUGGIE and yet apparently we in the cynical, all-knowing, NO-LIMITS-TO-ANYTHING 21st century CAN'T COPE with a character who, dare I suggest, IS MORE THAN ONE DIMENSIONAL? Who has an ACTUAL FAILING IN THEIR CHARACTER?
Rubbish Richie! Total TOSSPOTTERY!

Bleh. Last time we got a slight variation on Holmes with Everett's portrayal, fanboys complained there was too much drug-taking.

Personally I liked Everett's portrayal. My only complaint is he sounds bored the whole way through. It works, for the most part, but there are places where I feel he should have conveyed some degree of emotion. Don't really have a problem with Holmes taking drugs recreationally and when he needs to think instead of only when he doesn't have anything to stimulate his intellect, as I believe I pointed out when discussing the Roxburgh Baskervilles. What I do take issue with is removing the drug use. Drug taking isn't exactly minor, but even the most infinitesimal details are a part of the character. Change one of them and it ceases being the character, just someone quite similar.

Goodness; how funny. All you need is a copy of RealPlayer and you can download that entire soundtrack with the click of a button from that page. What a strange thing to do!

Indeed. Someone wasn't thinking, it seems.

Gave some of that score a listen late last night. It's okay. Not Zimmer's best work, but it isn't quite as repetitive as lot of his other works. Sometimes I can't distinguish between tracks as to which film he composed what for. His work often sounds too similar. So that's a plus.

[Sniperscope]

Excuse me. An open rant to Guy Richie.
A quote from your august self regarding Holmes and *ahem* drugs: "In this production we marginalised the drug use. I'm not sure if audiences are ready to accept a cocaine-injecting hero."
W.
T.
F?
"ready to accept"?!?
"READY TO ACCEPT"?!?!?!
So tell me, Guy Richie, because apparently this is THE FIRST EVER SHERLOCK HOLMES MOVIE TO HAVE BEEN MADE (!), but have audiences actually DEVOLVED in the last 120 years?
Why were Victorian/Edwadian readers from class-ridden, conservative, religious, middle-class backgrounds able to accept such a heinous DRUGGIE and yet apparently we in the cynical, all-knowing, NO-LIMITS-TO-ANYTHING 21st century CAN'T COPE with a character who, dare I suggest, IS MORE THAN ONE DIMENSIONAL? Who has an ACTUAL FAILING IN THEIR CHARACTER?
Rubbish Richie! Total TOSSPOTTERY!

Bleh. Last time we got a slight variation on Holmes with Everett's portrayal, fanboys complained there was too much drug-taking. Now it's too little. "Stop getting Holmes wrong!" etc. You'll never have the exact version in your head, or if it's Brett, you've already got it. Plus there'll be another version along in a matter of months with the BBC's new TV take. Plus there's another 'Further Adventures' on the way from BBC Radio 4 (another candidate for greatest adaptation of Holmes). Don't worry so much; it seems very silly. And if you start to worry, well the 'marry him, murder him' quote really does come in very handy.

Well, actually old bean i was having a bit of a laugh with my rant really, but nuance is not always possible on the internet and it made me feel a lot better so you needn't disturb yourself unduly over it.
I did as you may perhaps have noted already state a few posts back that Doyle and Richie should be judged on their own merits; hardly sounds like someone who is taking it too seriously, hmm? I'll see the film and judge it for what it is. Capice?

Altogether I think that by Richie dismissing an integral part of what makes Holmes, Holmes (or indeed failingly human) tends to suggest that he is playing it safe for the studios, advertisers and classification. This is what always really bothers me with Hollywood. Any amount of explicit violence, torture, gore or mayhem is fine and dandy, good and proper, but have a character who is hooked on drugs (for which he was admonished upon by Watson on several occasions and was never valorised by the stories or Sir ACD) and we have all sorts of manufactured moral panic. I am sure reading Holmes in The Strand didn't inspire a generation of coke fiends - but of course if Holmes had taken an altogether different kind of Coke then the studios would have been over the moon with appropriate product placement! Ah ha! Now there's an idea Guy Richie for the sequel when Holmes flies to New York chasing Moriarty, who's kidnapped Watson's wife, in a hot air balloon he's built in his trousers or some such twaddle.

Edited by Sniperscope, 20 December 2009 - 04:05 AM.

[Jackanaples]

I personally would have preferred that they'd kept the cocaine habit in. However, cocaine use has a different cultural context now in our time than it did in Victorian times. It was considered a little dangerous but it wasn't illegal then. Now it's something that could get you thrown in jail for possession and most of the cop movies and tv shows have had plots centered around it.

That Sherlock Holmes used cocaine is not nearly as important as Why He Used It. From The Sign of the Four:

"My mind," he said, "rebels at stagnation. Give me problems, give me work, give me the most abstruse cryptogram or the most intricate analysis, and I am in my own proper atmosphere. I can dispense then with artificial stimulants. But I abhor the dull routine of existence."

To you and some others it's very important that the letter be followed. To me, it's the spirit. As long as Holmes falls into horrible depressions that can only be alleviated intermittently by engaging in dangerous habits, then it's okay.

Said habit should be carry the same level of reproach from normal society that the cocaine would have in the 19th century.

It's kind of similar to when they translate a Japanese anime into English for Western audiences. For example, in PRINCESS MONONOKE a monk insults another character by saying his stew tastes like water. That's pretty funny for Japanese audience, who watch the movie in the context of their culture, history, etc. but falls flat with Western viewers. Over here the monk insults him by saying his stew tastes like donkey piss, because that's kind of thing that would count as an insult in the West.

Edited by Jackanaples, 20 December 2009 - 05:53 AM.

[Sniperscope]

I personally would have preferred that they'd kept the cocaine habit in. However, cocaine use has a different cultural context now in our time than it did in Victorian times. It was considered a little dangerous but it wasn't illegal then. Now it's something that could get you thrown in jail for possession and most of the cop movies and tv shows have had plots centered around it.

That Sherlock Holmes used cocaine is not nearly as important as Why He Used It. From The Sign of the Four:

"My mind," he said, "rebels at stagnation. Give me problems, give me work, give me the most abstruse cryptogram or the most intricate analysis, and I am in my own proper atmosphere. I can dispense then with artificial stimulants. But I abhor the dull routine of existence."

To you and some others it's very important that the letter be followed. To me, it's the spirit. As long as Holmes falls into horrible depressions that can only be alleviated intermittently by engaging in dangerous habits, then it's okay.

Said habit should be carry the same level of reproach from normal society that the cocaine would have in the 19th century.

It's kind of similar to when they translate a Japanese anime into English for Western audiences. For example, in PRINCESS MONONOKE a monk insults another character by saying his stew tastes like water. That's pretty funny for Japanese audience, who watch the movie in the context of their culture, history, etc. but falls flat with Western viewers. Over here the monk insults him by saying his stew tastes like donkey piss, because that's kind of thing that would count as an insult in the West.

And therein lies the problem. As a Japanese speaker myself don't get me started on the manner in which "translation" is made for English-speaking audiences (although I have not seen Mononokehime, so I'll trust you on that). Actually I would be insulted if someone told me my stew tasted like water in English, if anyone could be bothered anymore with being a bit clever with their words. The English version you mention is crude, un-nuanced and completely unsubtle - but why should I be surprised at that? I like to experience a different culture other than my own - otherwise I would never bother to watch anything that isn't in my mother tongue; to have something interpreted for "my" (supposed) cultural context is not why I experience cinema. I have always held that translation should be as close to the source as comprehension will allow.

The same is true for Holmes. I agree that cocaine has a different cache now than a century ago (afterall wasn't a nip of it the "secret" ingredient in coca cola?) but that's the point - Holmes does not live in 2009; I do he doesn't. Our values should not apply to a film firmly set within a specific historical epoch. And how, as you suggest "the spirit" is to be achieved without the means is perfectly baffling. This dimension to Holmes' character is essential. it exposes that beneath his detached, machine-like exterior, is a very vulnerable human being with a very real failing. That's a three-dimensionality that Sir ACD realised was important to his creation and one in which Richie has singularly misunderstood in favour of easy box-office acceptance.

I don't watch Holmes to see a reflection of myself, so why should Richie retroactively apply our values to an era that (uncomfortable as it may be) doesn't share them? This is the case with not only Holmes, but the plethora of "historical" films or tv shows where everyone talks, thinks and acts like we do. What a dull view of the past - and a fraudulent one. The Victorians were not us, in the same way that Japanese insults are not the same in English.

But isn't that exciting? Don't you think it's fun to learn something else about the world around us? Or does everyone have to be "me" so I can "get it"? Instead of striving for a monotonous equality of though and behaviour, perhaps we should all be enriched by seeing the world through different eyes - be they learning a Japanese insult or observing a 19th century man's vice.

Edited by Sniperscope, 20 December 2009 - 10:31 AM.

[marktmurphy]

Well, actually old bean i was having a bit of a laugh with my rant really, but nuance is not always possible on the internet and it made me feel a lot better so you needn't disturb yourself unduly over it.
I did as you may perhaps have noted already state a few posts back that Doyle and Richie should be judged on their own merits; hardly sounds like someone who is taking it too seriously, hmm? I'll see the film and judge it for what it is. Capice?

I don't watch Holmes to see a reflection of myself, so why should Richie retroactively apply our values to an era that (uncomfortable as it may be) doesn't share them? This is the case with not only Holmes, but the plethora of "historical" films or tv shows where everyone talks, thinks and acts like we do. What a dull view of the past - and a fraudulent one. The Victorians were not us, in the same way that Japanese insults are not the same in English.

No, you don't really sound like you're joking. Sounds like you're getting worked up over a blockbuster movie: I think you've mistaken this for a historical document (despite being entirely written in the 21st century) when actually it's a bit of Christmas entertainment. Chill yer beans.
As far as I know Holmes could be on a case all through this film: to have him drug-taking during that would be even more against Doyle's character. He didn't shoot up in every story; why can't this be one of those? Or do you need every Holmes story condensed into one?