1182 replies to this topic

[Sniperscope]

You think Holmes' violin playing is a "cliche"!? Hmmm...
Would you claim that any hobby you might have is a cliche and not an integral part of your own character?
I think the deerstalker is a cliche as are over-repeated catch-phrases like "Elementary my dear Watson" or "The game is afoot!"
The violin playing is part of Holmes' character because it allows a dimension to his behaviour and an emotional range that gives him depth. So too does his habit...

The benefit of a different medium is that you can paint the same strokes of character in different ways. The violin playing has become a cliche, yes. 'Dimension to his behaviour' and 'emotional range that gives him depth' are such vague terms as to be entirely meaningless- giving him emotions is easily rendered through a multitude of character moments: a hackneyed moment with an actor sawing away on an instrument he can't play is something we've seen so often as to slip into spoof. In that way it is a sort of shorthand most of the audience are already familiar with, but it's far from essential.
Maybe they'll do it, maybe they won't, but it's far from necessary and is certainly not the only way to show his introspective and selfish sides. Holmes is more than all of these little bits and pieces in the same way that we don't need every Bond film to feature 007 wearing a dinner suit, driving an Aston Martin, sleeping with the main Bond girl, going to visit Q and M at HQ, gambling at a casino, asking for a Martinishakennotstirred etc. He's still Bond even if he doesn't do every one of those things in a particular film. Do each of those things 'give him a dimension to his behaviour'? Of course they do. Do other new, original things in the same movies also give him the same dimension? Of course they do. It's ridiculous to say that only drinking a Martini will give him that 'dimension' in the same way that playing an instrument or taking a drug does the same for Holmes.

A cliche is an overused image or phrase which through its very predictablity has become redundant, meaningless even. All the things you have mentioned are potentially cliched if used so often or inappropriately that their signification carries nothing beyond the actual utterance. Holmes playing a violin is not a cliche. Holmes frequently playing the violin for no rhyme or reason simply to draw attention to himself as "Holmes", is.
If a director uses these to enhance the character then that is the best use of such elements, surely? In the hands of a superb director and actor these character moments can be exceptional and transformative.
Perhaps Richie and RDJ can do the same with these elements, or are you suggesting it is impossible to use these in an innovative manner?

Do each of those things 'give him a dimension to his behaviour'? Of course they do.

So what exactly have I said wrong then?

The benefit of a different medium is that you can paint the same strokes of character in different ways. The violin playing has become a cliche, yes. 'Dimension to his behaviour' and 'emotional range that gives him depth' are such vague terms as to be entirely meaningless- giving him emotions is easily rendered through a multitude of character moments

Which may indeed include the so-called cliches of the character! Are my terms really so vague? How indeed would you define the relationship between a character and the elements that are popularly associated with it?
"Character moments" can be achieved, richly, through using or reworking the traditional elements. No need to avoid them at all.
You mention Bond as an analogy, well - look at the wonderful "Do I look like I give a damn" moment in CR. It takes an overused cliche about martinis and turns it on its head to create an amazing character moment - but it wasn't avoided. Broccoli and Wilson realised that you can't throw the baby out with the bathwater but you can redefine and reclaim the stereotypes. The same for the dinner suit and the Aston. All the classic Bond elements were there but they were reworked. That's classy and sophisticated. I hope Richie does the same (and perhaps that's what he's up to with the boxing - remains to be seen!)

It's ridiculous to say that only drinking a Martini will give him that 'dimension' in the same way that playing an instrument or taking a drug does the same for Holmes.

Yes it would be ridiculous to say that - but you said it not I, Mr. Murphy.

Edited by Sniperscope, 24 December 2009 - 11:05 AM.

[Matt_13]

Just got the complete collection of Holmes stories for Christmas, and have already thoroughly enjoyed the first two adventures.

[Tybre]

Just got the complete collection of Holmes stories for Christmas, and have already thoroughly enjoyed the first two adventures.

Glad to hear you're enjoying them. I'm curious, though, did you start with A Study in Scarlet and then read The Sign of Four or did you begin with The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes or ? Not that it matters much where you began. Although there is definitely a bit of a canonical order to the stories, they can really be read in any old order. Sure, there are a few small references here and there (i.e. Irene Adler gets a mention in a few stories, despite appearing only in A Scandal in Bohemia), but excluding stories like The Adventure of the Final Problem (which really should have Charles Augustus Milverton read before that) and its follow-up, The Adventure of the Empty House (which, naturally, it is better to read post-Problem) the vast majority of Doyle's Holmes works can really be read in any old order.

[marktmurphy]

Holmes playing a violin is not a cliche.

Yeah, it is.

If a director uses these to enhance the character then that is the best use of such elements, surely? In the hands of a superb director and actor these character moments can be exceptional and transformative.
Perhaps Richie and RDJ can do the same with these elements, or are you suggesting it is impossible to use these in an innovative manner?

Strawman. Different question. I'm not in any way trying to say that they can't; just that they don't have to. There's more than one way of skinning a cat.

The benefit of a different medium is that you can paint the same strokes of character in different ways. The violin playing has become a cliche, yes. 'Dimension to his behaviour' and 'emotional range that gives him depth' are such vague terms as to be entirely meaningless- giving him emotions is easily rendered through a multitude of character moments

Which may indeed include the so-called cliches of the character! Are my terms really so vague? How indeed would you define the relationship between a character and the elements that are popularly associated with it?
"Character moments" can be achieved, richly, through using or reworking the traditional elements. No need to avoid them at all.

But no reason not to. You're not directing it: the director can do what he wants.

You mention Bond as an analogy, well - look at the wonderful "Do I look like I give a damn" moment in CR. It takes an overused cliche about martinis and turns it on its head to create an amazing character moment - but it wasn't avoided. Broccoli and Wilson realised that you can't throw the baby out with the bathwater but you can redefine and reclaim the stereotypes. The same for the dinner suit and the Aston. All the classic Bond elements were there but they were reworked. That's classy and sophisticated.

So Live and Let Die, for example, is some sort of crime against Bond? None of those aspects (Martinis, Astons, dinner suits) are there in that: if you'd read that on 1973 internet would you have been berating the director of that for not being brave enough to have him wear a bow tie? Is Live and Let Die not a Bond film or does it function just dandily without 'em?

It's ridiculous to say that only drinking a Martini will give him that 'dimension' in the same way that playing an instrument or taking a drug does the same for Holmes.

Yes it would be ridiculous to say that - but you said it not I, Mr. Murphy.

So why are you going on about the bleedin' needle so much if you think he doesn't need it?!

And why are you putting a stress on 'Mr'? You act as if you're uncustomed to simple manners.




So who's seen the film?

[zencat]

Monday for me.

[marktmurphy]

I think I might be going tomorrow but I'll have to see how that goes. I'm really looking forward to it to be honest. I suppose I've got to see Avatar but that feels like a bit of a chore: I want to see Shirley!

[Tybre]

Was going to see it this morning but got distracted by video games...which I still haven't stopped playing for more than about ten minutes at a time to check up on CBn, Facebook, et cetera. Probably going tomorrow morning or afternoon. If not tomorrow, winter break doesn't end until the first, and being that that's a Friday I'm off until the fourth, so I will definitely get round to seeing it some time between Monday and next Sunday.

[Matt_13]

Just got the complete collection of Holmes stories for Christmas, and have already thoroughly enjoyed the first two adventures.

Glad to hear you're enjoying them. I'm curious, though, did you start with A Study in Scarlet and then read The Sign of Four or did you begin with The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes or ? Not that it matters much where you began. Although there is definitely a bit of a canonical order to the stories, they can really be read in any old order. Sure, there are a few small references here and there (i.e. Irene Adler gets a mention in a few stories, despite appearing only in A Scandal in Bohemia), but excluding stories like The Adventure of the Final Problem (which really should have Charles Augustus Milverton read before that) and its follow-up, The Adventure of the Empty House (which, naturally, it is better to read post-Problem) the vast majority of Doyle's Holmes works can really be read in any old order.

Reading them chronologically. So far, the League of Red Headed People was the most amusing.

[Sniperscope]

It's ridiculous to say that only drinking a Martini will give him that 'dimension' in the same way that playing an instrument or taking a drug does the same for Holmes.

Yes it would be ridiculous to say that - but you said it not I, Mr. Murphy.

So why are you going on about the bleedin' needle so much if you think he doesn't need it?!

Eh?! You're not really reading my posts at all if you think that!
Anyway the only direction our discussion can go now is pantomime gainsaying based on your points!

Yeah, it is.

Oh no it's not!

You're not directing it: the director can do what he wants.

He's not the boss of me!

That's all we're left with - no further conversation possible and neither of us is going to accommodate the other it seems!

Edited by Sniperscope, 27 December 2009 - 02:21 PM.

[Mr. Blofeld]

Some of you might enjoy this article: The Case of the Weird Sherlock Holmes Adaptations

[marktmurphy]

It's ridiculous to say that only drinking a Martini will give him that 'dimension' in the same way that playing an instrument or taking a drug does the same for Holmes.

Yes it would be ridiculous to say that - but you said it not I, Mr. Murphy.

So why are you going on about the bleedin' needle so much if you think he doesn't need it?!

Eh?! You're not really reading my posts at all if you think that!
Anyway the only direction our discussion can go now is pantomime gainsaying based on your points!

Choose what you want to say: that's all I ask. You say that it's ridiculous to say that the martini or needle is the only way of giving the character 'dimension'. Therefore, I'm asking why it's a problem if the adapter chooses another method of adding this 'dimension'. Perfectly straightforward, logical question.

Yeah, it is.

Oh no it's not!

This is pathetic.
The violin-playing is just as trite as any of the other Holmes clichés. That's not to say that they can't all be freshened up and revitalised; but equally they don't have to be.

You're not directing it: the director can do what he wants.

He's not the boss of me!

But you want to be the boss of him? Abusing him and his ability because he chooses not to take a path you want him to.
'He's not the boss of me'. Absolutely idiotic. Why bother to even post if that's the kind of non-response you're going to offer? I despair.

Some of you might enjoy this article: The Case of the Weird Sherlock Holmes Adaptations

A nice little piece, if a bit sniffy. Thanks for linking.
Personally I welcome as many new Holmeses as possible. I love all the alternate spins as much as I love the really faithful adaptations like Brett and Merrison. I often even prefer the new stories to the original ones: the Further Adventures are always deliciously plotted. The Abergavenny Murder is possibly my most favourite slice of Holmes ever.

[Tybre]

Stumbled upon this and found it quite amusing. Just absolutely hilarious.

[Sniperscope]

It's ridiculous to say that only drinking a Martini will give him that 'dimension' in the same way that playing an instrument or taking a drug does the same for Holmes.

Yes it would be ridiculous to say that - but you said it not I, Mr. Murphy.

So why are you going on about the bleedin' needle so much if you think he doesn't need it?!

Eh?! You're not really reading my posts at all if you think that!
Anyway the only direction our discussion can go now is pantomime gainsaying based on your points!

Choose what you want to say: that's all I ask. You say that it's ridiculous to say that the martini or needle is the only way of giving the character 'dimension'. Therefore, I'm asking why it's a problem if the adapter chooses another method of adding this 'dimension'. Perfectly straightforward, logical question.


my reply (sorry to put it here but i'm doing this is a hurry and the formating is crapping me)
your "logical question" is a misrepresentation of my argument. note your use of "only" in your original point. i have never suggested such a limited viewpoint- you have in your "logical question". these elements add to the character and add a dimension to their behaviour. yes you can get them in other ways but at what point does the character cease to be holmes and instead just another generic action hero. say what you like about the cliches but they are an important part of what makes holmes different from the rest. take that away and he becomes generic. can't be any clearer.

Yeah, it is.

Oh no it's not!

This is pathetic.
The violin-playing is just as trite as any of the other Holmes clichés. That's not to say that they can't all be freshened up and revitalised; but equally they don't have to be.

You're not directing it: the director can do what he wants.

He's not the boss of me!

But you want to be the boss of him? Abusing him and his ability because he chooses not to take a path you want him to.
'He's not the boss of me'. Absolutely idiotic. Why bother to even post if that's the kind of non-response you're going to offer? I despair.

it was your gainsaying responses that led me respond to like with like. if you seriously think that a line of argument like you're not the director is a cogent point it's no wonder you took my boss of me nonsense at face value. i can see that irony is lost on you. perhaps i need to use more emoticons?

Edited by Sniperscope, 28 December 2009 - 03:43 AM.

[Bryce (003)]

Saw it on Christmas day.

Myself - I really had fun.

While it may not be everyone's cup 'o tea, I truly enjoyed it. It's a bit OTT, but still, in entertaining and damn good fun. You know, what a movie should be.

Bryce-o-meter =

[zencat]

Just back from seeing it at Graumans Chinese -- digital projection, crazy loud sound, only way to go.

I loved it!

Terrific score. Awesome production design. Jude Law's Watson was dynamite. Robert Downey Jr was...Robert Downey Jr. Nothing wrong with that. Rachel McAdams was a smokin' hot Victorian pixie -- I was pleasantly surprised how Adler was integrated into the story. Villain worked fine. Loved the closing credit sequence. I also really liked that the action wasn't overwhelming, and I loved how

Spoiler

all of Blackwell's supernatural feats were explained in the end -- wasn't at all sure they were going to do that.

I think my only disappointment was not seeing the deerstalker at some point.

It all just worked wonderfully well for me as a big budget Hollywood Sherlock Holmes romp. I never thought I'd see the day.

Bring on the sequel!

[zencat]

Ritchie has said that Holmes will not use cocaine in the movie. What if it's said/implied/referred to that he has taken cocaine in the past? This would would be a natural thing to do with Robert Downey, Jr. who had his own famous cocaine habit years ago.

I'm not an expert on the canon, but did Holmes use cocaine in the later stories as well? Or only the early ones? I was under the impression that he stopped doing it at some point.

Holmes never did cocaine again after the "great hiatus" and his return from the "dead." So cocaine only appears in first two sets of stories (Adventures and Memories).

Holmes used cocaine to excite the mind when he had nothing to challenge it. Alcohol would achieve quite the opposite effect.

Doyle would have probably been livid at the idea of Holmes hitting the bottle. His own father was a deadbeat alcoholic, and the Holmes stories are often feature repulsive drunkards who usually commit their most violent crimes while on the sauce.

It's a shame Downey's Holmes didn't do cocaine -- he certainly seems to be under the influnce of something -- and I agree alcohol is a poor substitute and very un-Holmes-like, but the reason is simple. Drug use gets an instant "R" rating, and this is meant to be a broad audience film, so no coke.

[Qwerty]

Saw this last night and thoroughly enjoyed it.

Was a little worried after seeing the trailer about what kind of film this was trying to be, but after seeing the real deal, it's definitely a fun mix of action, mystery and the comedic moments. The main roles are also cast wonderfully.

I really hope we see a follow-up in the near future from Guy Ritchie.

[Safari Suit]

Well there is a violin in the film, so that will make whoever wanted it or didn't want happy or unhappy, I lost track of what was going on there to be honest.

Anyway this was good fun. Not great fun, not the most fun I've had in a cinema all year or anything, but good fun. And that's fine, and more than I was expected. Unlike much modern franchise fare it's neither too serious nor too fatuous; it's fun but engaging. I'm a Holmes maverick but I was totally against this film from the early trailers; I thought it looked Van Helsing-level dumb. It isn't anything like that, although not unlike Sommers, Ritchie needs to work a little on pacing and on developing momentum; it's sometimes hard to tell what stage of the film you're at while you're watching it. I also am not a fan of the scenes where we hear Holmes' internal thought process in a fight while a slow-motion fight plays out. I can not think of any way of making action less exciting. Is it a novelty? Maybe, but there's good reason for that. There's also a faintly risible scene where the film seems to try to turn into Black Hawk Down, completely with BHD-esque music (the rest of the score, reminiscent of The Ipcress File, is enjoyable). Other than that though, he seems to have matured as a director and does a good job. The film looks great, and the action is decent. The trailers suggested there would be an overwhelming level of Bay-esque action, which isn't the case at all.

I'll probably be in a minority on this but I didn't completely love Robert Downey Jr. in this role. He was fine, but he just seemed a little too mannered and unnatural to really warm to. I actually prefered Law, and I never thought I'd say that. Rachel McAdams is fairly dire; she just doesn't look, sound or act Victorian and it takes you out of the film a little. I also agree with a reviewer who said she could have been taken out of the film with little effect on the narrative, but her story does pay off in a wonderful moment at the end I wont spoil. Mark Strong is a solid, interesting villain who could have used a little more screen-time.

Like I said I'm no expert on the character, but to me it did seem to retain enough of the characteristics of the Holmes world to not just seem like another generic blockbuster, which didn't seem the case from some of the trailers. There is a solid mystery plot here, although like many modern franchise films, at times it seems a little too concerned with setting up further installments, where it should be ensuring them by keeping us interested in this one. It actually reminded me quite a bit of The Shadow, in good and bad ways.

On the whole, a pretty good time at the movies. In terms of "reboots" I don't think it's as accomplished as CR or the Nolan Bat-flicks, but I liked this more than Star Trek. That, in many ways, was the film I was afraid this would be from the trailers. As far as popcorn Holmes goes, this is better than Young Shelock Holmes (which I enjoyed up to a point).

[zencat]

I'll probably be in a minority on this but I didn't completely love Robert Downey Jr. in this role.

Oh, not at all. I really enjoyed the movie, but I didn't care for Downey's take on Holmes. I thought he was way too emotionally needy. Needy of Watson, needly of Irene... Holmes has no emotional needs whatsoever. All he needs is WORK. That's what makes him so focused (and funny). But I enjoy Downey himself and he knows how to play an eccentric, and Holmes is certainly an eccentric, so that made up for it. But it sort of reminded me of how they characterized Spock in the new Star Trek. They've taken the one character who has no emotion (like Holmes he's a product of pure logic) and made him the most emotional character in the movie. Sure, emotional needs lurk under the surface (although I'm not sure it does with Holmes), but these "peeks behind the curtain" have become a little much. But this seems to be the trend with reboots.

[dodge]

Saw it and loved it...but wished it had been about 15-20 minutes shorter. In one or two places, it dragged just a bit. That said, the most controversial aspect--'transforming' Holmes into a brawler--made perfect sense in terms of both character and story. I loved the visual technique used of displaying Holmes' logical analysis of a fight before it starts...then replaying the fight in real-time. Like Zencat, I loved the logical explanation of the supernatural goings-on. Also, Jude Law was wonderful--the least stuffy and stiff of all Watsons. Bring on the sequel, indeed!

[Revelator]

If only Doyle's Holmes had such excellent brawling skills--they might have prevented Holmes from getting the **** beat out of him in "The Illustrious Client"!

[zencat]

Well Holmes does get into a brawl in The Priory School and pretty much takes the guy out Downey-style. And let's not forgot who won the fight at Reichenbach.

This from Wiki:

Fist-fighting: Holmes is described as a formidable bare-knuckle fighter. In The Sign of the Four, Holmes introduces himself to a prize-fighter as:

"The amateur who fought three rounds with you at Alison's rooms on the night of your benefit four years back." McMurdo responds by saying, "Ah, you're one that has wasted your gifts, you have! You might have aimed high, if you had joined the fancy."

Holmes engages in hand to hand combat with his adversaries on occasions throughout the stories, inevitably emerging the victor.[28] It is mentioned also in "Gloria Scott" that Holmes trained as a boxer.

Don't know why people are saying this boxing thing in Sherlock is a Hollywood invention. It's absolutely rooted in Doyle, as are Holmes's judo skills.

[Tybre]

Judo skills? Holmes was trained in bartitsu, which employs only a slim bit of judo. And it's not the boxing I have problem with. I have problem with the alcohol replacing the cocaine, as I've pointed out. And the "general lack of cleanliness" line from the trailers. 221B is pretty much in chaos, but Watson describes Holmes as taking great care in matters of personal hygiene. I have other issues, too, but those all stem from the first draft...most of them anyway. But I'm just going to keep my mouth shut regarding any of my issues until I've seen what they've done between the first draft and now. Still thinking my initial feelings regarding the first draft will hold up though -- decent film, bad Holmes film. But we'll see.

[Mr. Blofeld]

Holmes was trained in bartitsu

...which Conan Doyle made up, and so Hollywood has every right to take liberties with in order to show Sherlock's fighting prowess onscreen.

[Tybre]

Holmes was trained in bartitsu

...which Conan Doyle made up, and so Hollywood has every right to take liberties with in order to show Sherlock's fighting prowess onscreen.

Check and mate.

[Jim]

Jolly good pantomime Christmas fun. Enjoyed that a lot.

[Mr. Blofeld]

Holmes was trained in bartitsu

...which Conan Doyle made up, and so Hollywood has every right to take liberties with in order to show Sherlock's fighting prowess onscreen.

Check and mate.

Rejoice, friends, for I hath crossed the Tybre:

Bartitsu might have been completely forgotten if not for a chance mention by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle in one of his Sherlock Holmes mystery stories. By the 1890s, Conan Doyle had become weary of chronicling the adventures of Sherlock Holmes. He had actually killed Holmes off in his 1893 story, The Adventure of the Final Problem, in which Holmes apparently plunged to his death over a waterfall during a struggle with his arch-enemy, Professor Moriarty.

However, such was the public clamour for the fictional detective’s return that Conan Doyle capitulated and revived Holmes for another story, The Adventure of the Empty House, in 1901. As Holmes himself explained his apparently miraculous survival:

"When I reached the end I stood at bay. He drew no weapon, but he rushed at me and threw his long arms around me. He knew that his own game was up, and was only anxious to revenge himself upon me. We tottered together upon the brink of the fall. I have some knowledge, however, of baritsu, or the Japanese system of wrestling, which has more than once been very useful to me. I slipped through his grip, and he with a horrible scream kicked madly for a few seconds and clawed the air with both his hands. But for all his efforts he could not get his balance, and over he went. With my face over the brink I saw him fall for a long way. Then he struck a rock, bounced off, and splashed into the water."

In fact, "baritsu" did not exist outside the pages of the English editions of The Adventure of the Empty House. It is possible that Conan Doyle, who, like E.W. Barton-Wright, was writing for Pearson’s Magazine during the late 1890s, was vaguely aware of Bartitsu and simply mis-remembered or misheard the term; it may even have been a typographical error or a concern about copyright. It should also be noted that a newspaper report on a Bartitsu demonstration in London, published in 1900, had likewise misspelled the name as baritsu.

Given that Doyle had Holmes define "baritsu" as "Japanese wrestling", it seems likely that he had in mind the jiujitsu aspect of Barton-Wright's martial art when he wrote "The Adventure of the Empty House".

In any case, the term "baritsu" was considered to be too esoteric by Conan Doyle’s American editors, who further added to the confusion by substituting the word "jiujitsu" in the American editions of the story.

This confusion of names persisted through much of the 20th century, with Holmes enthusiasts puzzling over the identity of baritsu. It was not until the 1990s that scholars including Y. Hirayama, J. Hall, Richard Bowen and James Webb were able to positively identify the martial art of Sherlock Holmes.

[Tybre]

Holmes was trained in bartitsu

...which Conan Doyle made up, and so Hollywood has every right to take liberties with in order to show Sherlock's fighting prowess onscreen.

Check and mate.

Rejoice, friends, for I hath crossed the Tybre:

Bartitsu might have been completely forgotten if not for a chance mention by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle in one of his Sherlock Holmes mystery stories. By the 1890s, Conan Doyle had become weary of chronicling the adventures of Sherlock Holmes. He had actually killed Holmes off in his 1893 story, The Adventure of the Final Problem, in which Holmes apparently plunged to his death over a waterfall during a struggle with his arch-enemy, Professor Moriarty.

However, such was the public clamour for the fictional detective’s return that Conan Doyle capitulated and revived Holmes for another story, The Adventure of the Empty House, in 1901. As Holmes himself explained his apparently miraculous survival:

"When I reached the end I stood at bay. He drew no weapon, but he rushed at me and threw his long arms around me. He knew that his own game was up, and was only anxious to revenge himself upon me. We tottered together upon the brink of the fall. I have some knowledge, however, of baritsu, or the Japanese system of wrestling, which has more than once been very useful to me. I slipped through his grip, and he with a horrible scream kicked madly for a few seconds and clawed the air with both his hands. But for all his efforts he could not get his balance, and over he went. With my face over the brink I saw him fall for a long way. Then he struck a rock, bounced off, and splashed into the water."

In fact, "baritsu" did not exist outside the pages of the English editions of The Adventure of the Empty House. It is possible that Conan Doyle, who, like E.W. Barton-Wright, was writing for Pearson’s Magazine during the late 1890s, was vaguely aware of Bartitsu and simply mis-remembered or misheard the term; it may even have been a typographical error or a concern about copyright. It should also be noted that a newspaper report on a Bartitsu demonstration in London, published in 1900, had likewise misspelled the name as baritsu.

Given that Doyle had Holmes define "baritsu" as "Japanese wrestling", it seems likely that he had in mind the jiujitsu aspect of Barton-Wright's martial art when he wrote "The Adventure of the Empty House".

In any case, the term "baritsu" was considered to be too esoteric by Conan Doyle’s American editors, who further added to the confusion by substituting the word "jiujitsu" in the American editions of the story.

This confusion of names persisted through much of the 20th century, with Holmes enthusiasts puzzling over the identity of baritsu. It was not until the 1990s that scholars including Y. Hirayama, J. Hall, Richard Bowen and James Webb were able to positively identify the martial art of Sherlock Holmes.

Typo =/= made up. The point stands. Bartitsu exists.

Now, the stories make it clear Holmes knows more than bartitsu, so I'm fine with a bit of liberty (honestly I'm not even sure the pretty great Holmes v Moriarty from the Russian series is any kind of fighting style) and the bareknuckle boxing really isn't even that much liberty. Holmes was a boxer and he did get into scuffles with criminals every now and again. Just pointing out bartitsu =/= judo; it just includes elements of it.

And believe you me I can keep this up all night. I honestly have nothing better to do until the fourth.

[Vauxhall]

On the subject of the movie:

Unashamedly loved it. Perhaps not high art, but a really enjoyable two hours of cinema time for me. I’m also a big fan of the books, and whilst it was not a play-by-play recreation of Conan Doyle’s work, it was a passable take on the character. All of the main cast put in excellent performances and my enjoyment of Downey Jr.’s work continues. Also some decent action, a clever plot and a nice style. Solid Christmas fare all round. Already excited for the inevitable sequel.

[zencat]

Judo skills? Holmes was trained in bartitsu, which employs only a slim bit of judo. And it's not the boxing I have problem with. I have problem with the alcohol replacing the cocaine, as I've pointed out.

Okay, bartitsu. A martial art is what I meant. I wasn't going to look it up.

And I also don't like alcohol replacing the cocaine, but as I pointed out, this was necessary to get a PG-13 rating. It's just one of those things that has to be done. I'm sure the filmmakers don't like it any more than we do.

Other points I find forgivable and/or typical. I wasn't looking or expecting a painstakingly faithful Holmes film from Hollywood. Just an entertaining one.