Meh, to say that Sherlock is asexual and should always be asexual is to ask for an arrest of character development. This Sherlock displayed all of the awesome qualities of Holmes in the books while adding some new stuff that seems logically sound for him to have developed.
I hardly think thoroughly altering the character could be considered character development.
I thought the movie was very entertaining, and I enjoyed it a lot. I wouldn't mind a sequel. I'm just not buying that it's a faithful rendition. It's also not a development of the character so much as a re-imagining, much of Sherlock Holmes life occurs within the chronology of the stories.
But once again, I don't think that's detrimental to the movie. I think it's enjoyable for what it is, and I see little reason to try to demand that it stand alongside the stories at this point.
DVGNo. 1 Honor StudentNether Institute, Evil AcademyRegistered Userregular
edited December 2009
To be fair, I discarded the notion, long ago, that movies should try to completely emulate their source materials. This goes double when not adapting a specific work.
Part of it is likely that I haven't read any before so the movie seems to fit the books for me, whereas most people have their own interpretation of the books which may not match up with the movie.
But as far as I can tell so far, it's a fairly faithful adaptation.
Part of it is likely that I haven't read any before so the movie seems to fit the books for me, whereas most people have their own interpretation of the books which may not match up with the movie.
But as far as I can tell so far, it's a fairly faithful adaptation.
Well, if you can get it, I recommend grabbing A Study in Scarlet for your Kindle and reading that. It's the beginning of the whole shebang.
I'm glad you dug it, Alecthar. You were skeptical going in, if I remember right.
I don't think this is going to be the "franchise" the studio was hoping for, though.
I was, and the movie certainly didn't resonate with me in the same way the Jeremy Brett adaptations of the stories did, but as a popcorn flick with some Holmesian inspiration? Definitely a good time, and worth my $7.
To me it felt very much like the books also. They added a bit of action but I was fine with that. They didn't show any direct drug use because that makes for an instant R rating but he was quite clearly drugged out of his mind the first quarter of the movie till he gets the case.
As a fan of the books I thought it was a fine adaptation and I thought the casting was excellent.
Cabezone on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
edited December 2009
I really liked it. Perfectly acted by Downey and Law, and McAdams held her own despite being miscast.
Saw it christmas eve night/christmas morning. Dead quiet theater everyone seemed to have enjoyed it thoroughly. Thank god Guy Ritchie didn't fuck it up.
I loved the little beat down summaries, especially the second one.
Preacher on
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
edited December 2009
$5 w/military discount
jungleroomx on
0
Options
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
edited December 2009
Really enjoyed this. It felt a bit off initially but I quickly got swept away and they kept the essence of the stories as far as I am concerned: The genius leaps of logic, the usage of this genius in unorthodox situations and the mysterious turns out mundane with a hint of maybe not.
Total Spoiler For the Entire Film Ahoy
Specifically, that the devil magic turned out to be conjuring tricks, but right at the end there is a "coincidence" with the girder and Blackwoods death that is a tiny bit ambiguous, right after holmes mentioned the Devil needing a soul. It's entirely left up to the viewer to decide if it was supernatural or coincidence.
I'm absolutely aware that it is nowhere near as genteel as the books were, but to me these were not the essences of the original stories, they were just the culture it was based in. I'm sure that to victorians the "boring" or "civilised" problems in the stories would have been exciting and interesting.
The action scenes were a bit unholmsey but not when I realised that a potentially disrupted marriage is not particularly interesting to most people nowadays like it would have been back then but punching people in the face certainly is. Which is when I decided it fitted the spirit of the stories.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
And damn this was an enjoyable flick. I also have to agree that it was pretty faithful to the material, but with a little extra action thrown in. And I also agree that this is probably closer to what Holmes would have been if it had been written in a more recent era.
Glad I saw it, and I'll give it the rare "I look forward to sequels."
For everyone who was arguing whether Holmes was "in love" with Adler in the books, Wikipedia has an excellent quote from "A Scandal in Bohemia" on the Irene Adler page:
To Sherlock Holmes she is always the woman. I have seldom heard him mention her under any other name. In his eyes she eclipses and predominates the whole of her sex. It was not that he felt any emotion akin to love for Irene Adler. All emotions, and that one particularly, were abhorrent to his cold, precise but admirably balanced mind. He was, I take it, the most perfect reasoning and observing machine that the world has seen, but as a lover he would have placed himself in a false position. He never spoke of the softer passions, save with a gibe and a sneer. They were admirable things for the observer — excellent for drawing the veil from men's motives and actions. But for the trained reasoner to admit such intrusions into his own delicate and finely adjusted temperament was to introduce a distracting factor which might throw a doubt upon all his mental results. Grit in a sensitive instrument, or a crack in one of his own high-power lenses, would not be more disturbing than a strong emotion in a nature such as his. And yet there was but one woman to him, and that woman was the late Irene Adler, of dubious and questionable memory.
So it's very clear that while Holmes did not feel love (bolded part), but his admiration for her was extremely strong.
p.s. I 'd this movie so hard, and want to see it again in theaters for sure. It was extremely entertaining and well-done.
For everyone who was arguing whether Holmes was "in love" with Adler in the books, Wikipedia has an excellent quote from "A Scandal in Bohemia" on the Irene Adler page:
To Sherlock Holmes she is always the woman. I have seldom heard him mention her under any other name. In his eyes she eclipses and predominates the whole of her sex. It was not that he felt any emotion akin to love for Irene Adler. All emotions, and that one particularly, were abhorrent to his cold, precise but admirably balanced mind. He was, I take it, the most perfect reasoning and observing machine that the world has seen, but as a lover he would have placed himself in a false position. He never spoke of the softer passions, save with a gibe and a sneer. They were admirable things for the observer — excellent for drawing the veil from men's motives and actions. But for the trained reasoner to admit such intrusions into his own delicate and finely adjusted temperament was to introduce a distracting factor which might throw a doubt upon all his mental results. Grit in a sensitive instrument, or a crack in one of his own high-power lenses, would not be more disturbing than a strong emotion in a nature such as his. And yet there was but one woman to him, and that woman was the late Irene Adler, of dubious and questionable memory.
So it's very clear that while Holmes did not feel love (bolded part), but his admiration for her was extremely strong.
p.s. I 'd this movie so hard, and want to see it again in theaters for sure. It was extremely entertaining and well-done.
I like to think a lot of the Holmes in the stories is simply Watson embellishing his personality quirks (which I believe even Homes calls him on at least once) and that while he was brilliant he wasn't this borderline madman seperated from all emotion. Actually Downey's portrayal is similar to what I think Homes was "really" like.
King Riptor on
I have a podcast now. It's about video games and anime!Find it here.
0
Options
ElJeffeRoaming the streets, waving his mod gun around.Moderator, ClubPAMod Emeritus
edited December 2009
Man, this movie rocked. I figured it would, because RDJ is fantastic and I don't think I've seen a film of his I didn't really like.
Can't wait for the sequel.
(And if we're talking ticket prices, it's around $10 here, $8 for matinee, but one theater has an early-bird special on first showings of the day for $5.50.)
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Man, this movie rocked. I figured it would, because RDJ is fantastic and I don't think I've seen a film of his I didn't really like.
Can't wait for the sequel.
(And if we're talking ticket prices, it's around $10 here, $8 for matinee, but one theater has an early-bird special on first showings of the day for $5.50.)
To me, "can't wait for the sequel" is a huge compliment. There are so few movies where I actively want to see sequels. Hell, I really didn't even care if Iron Man or Batman Begins had sequels (though obviously on the latter I was quite happy it did). There are a ton of movies where I don't mind the idea of a sequel, and I will go see them, but this is the first movie in a while where I'm excited about seeing sequels.
Possibly because of how much I loved Holmes as a kid, also in no small part due to RDJ's absolute awesometacularness.
mcdermott on
0
Options
DeadfallI don't think you realize just how rich he is.In fact, I should put on a monocle.Registered Userregular
edited December 2009
Saw it a second time yesterday, and it was just as excellent as the first. I like Guy Ritchie films, RDJ and Jude Law, so I was expecting to like it.
Though I had a hell of a time picking up the conversations the first time around. I couldn't make out what Holmes and Watson were saying half the time, but I guess my ears adjusted the second time because I understood it all.
Deadfall on
xbl - HowYouGetAnts
steam - WeAreAllGeth
0
Options
ElJeffeRoaming the streets, waving his mod gun around.Moderator, ClubPAMod Emeritus
edited December 2009
I'm not getting all the Guy Ritchie hate in here, btw. There are people who didn't like Snatch?
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I'm not getting all the Guy Ritchie hate in here, btw. There are people who didn't like Snatch?
Snatch was meh. I enjoyed it, it wasn't terrible, but Lock, Stock was by far the better movie. I can't imagine a time when I'd sit down and watch Snatch again.
mcdermott on
0
Options
ElJeffeRoaming the streets, waving his mod gun around.Moderator, ClubPAMod Emeritus
I'm not getting all the Guy Ritchie hate in here, btw. There are people who didn't like Snatch?
Snatch was meh. I enjoyed it, it wasn't terrible, but Lock, Stock was by far the better movie. I can't imagine a time when I'd sit down and watch Snatch again.
LS&TSB was great, yeah. And I dug Snatch. But those are the two movies I think of when someone says "Guy Ritchie," and I haven't seen most of his other movies. And they don't seem the type of films that would engender such hate.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I'm not getting all the Guy Ritchie hate in here, btw. There are people who didn't like Snatch?
Snatch was meh. I enjoyed it, it wasn't terrible, but Lock, Stock was by far the better movie. I can't imagine a time when I'd sit down and watch Snatch again.
LS&TSB was great, yeah. And I dug Snatch. But those are the two movies I think of when someone says "Guy Ritchie," and I haven't seen most of his other movies. And they don't seem the type of films that would engender such hate.
RocknRolla was pretty decent too, with a really great soundtrack.
Actually, the obvious setup for the sequel was probably the only thing that really bugged me about the movie. I mean, I understand that everything needs to be a trilogy now, but they weren't subtle about it at all.
I'm not getting all the Guy Ritchie hate in here, btw. There are people who didn't like Snatch?
Snatch was meh. I enjoyed it, it wasn't terrible, but Lock, Stock was by far the better movie. I can't imagine a time when I'd sit down and watch Snatch again.
I think Snatch is the superior film as a stand alone, but if you've seen Lock, Stock before you've seen snatch you probably think Snatch is pretty feh given the huge number of overlaps in style, character and story.
Actually, the obvious setup for the sequel was probably the only thing that really bugged me about the movie. I mean, I understand that everything needs to be a trilogy now, but they weren't subtle about it at all.
Yea, this was my complaint. I wouldn't mind at all seeing a sequel, but it really didn't need to be so obviously setup in the movie. It was moving very close to breaking immersion.
The stories had several endings where Holmes talked about someone directing a lot of the crimes he was solving but it was never this ham fisted. It took him years of research to get the amount of info he got in the movie. I can't see that working in a movie format, a TV show would work better at that.
Decently entertaining, but I felt this could have been so much better. I needed more witty repartee like in Lock, Stock. Oh, and the plot made absolutely no fucking sense. Why didn't they go with a plot from one of the books? I'm kind of sick of movies about evil shadow organizations that really control everything blah blah blah.
The stories had several endings where Holmes talked about someone directing a lot of the crimes he was solving but it was never this ham fisted. It took him years of research to get the amount of info he got in the movie. I can't see that working in a movie format, a TV show would work better at that.
I haven't read the books, but I assume they were hinting at Moriarty? In the movie,
Moriarty took advantage of an existing crime and Holmes' related investigation. I thought it was pretty clever turnabout at the end. I mean, I suppose it wasn't completely necessary to have it spelled out to the audience at the end, but Sherlock Holmes isn't really the kind of guy to not figure out that sort of thing.
Who are other good evil-types who could play Moriarty? Or d'you think he should be cast completely against the villain-type, like with a Brad Pitt or George Clooney?
Posts
I hardly think thoroughly altering the character could be considered character development.
I thought the movie was very entertaining, and I enjoyed it a lot. I wouldn't mind a sequel. I'm just not buying that it's a faithful rendition. It's also not a development of the character so much as a re-imagining, much of Sherlock Holmes life occurs within the chronology of the stories.
But once again, I don't think that's detrimental to the movie. I think it's enjoyable for what it is, and I see little reason to try to demand that it stand alongside the stories at this point.
Battle.net
But as far as I can tell so far, it's a fairly faithful adaptation.
I shall go on wednesday.
On your head be it ;-)
Well, if you can get it, I recommend grabbing A Study in Scarlet for your Kindle and reading that. It's the beginning of the whole shebang.
Battle.net
I don't think this is going to be the "franchise" the studio was hoping for, though.
Geek: Remixed - A Decade's worth of ruined pop culture memories
Xbox Live - Fatboy PDX
I was, and the movie certainly didn't resonate with me in the same way the Jeremy Brett adaptations of the stories did, but as a popcorn flick with some Holmesian inspiration? Definitely a good time, and worth my $7.
Battle.net
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
Kentucky.
Battle.net
woowoo $3.50 at a college town woooooo
As a fan of the books I thought it was a fine adaptation and I thought the casting was excellent.
Hope this makes enough to see another one.
$2 in my hometown. It's a terrible theater.
Also, Holmes set a record for Christmas opening. This is DESPITE coming in behind Avatar. I do believe we will be seeing a sequel.
Enjoyed it, and I really loved the Holmes/Watson interaction.
Platinum FC: 2880 3245 5111
I loved the little beat down summaries, especially the second one.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Total Spoiler For the Entire Film Ahoy
I'm absolutely aware that it is nowhere near as genteel as the books were, but to me these were not the essences of the original stories, they were just the culture it was based in. I'm sure that to victorians the "boring" or "civilised" problems in the stories would have been exciting and interesting.
The action scenes were a bit unholmsey but not when I realised that a potentially disrupted marriage is not particularly interesting to most people nowadays like it would have been back then but punching people in the face certainly is. Which is when I decided it fitted the spirit of the stories.
$8.50 with military discount, so not too bad.
And damn this was an enjoyable flick. I also have to agree that it was pretty faithful to the material, but with a little extra action thrown in. And I also agree that this is probably closer to what Holmes would have been if it had been written in a more recent era.
Glad I saw it, and I'll give it the rare "I look forward to sequels."
p.s. I
I like to think a lot of the Holmes in the stories is simply Watson embellishing his personality quirks (which I believe even Homes calls him on at least once) and that while he was brilliant he wasn't this borderline madman seperated from all emotion. Actually Downey's portrayal is similar to what I think Homes was "really" like.
Can't wait for the sequel.
(And if we're talking ticket prices, it's around $10 here, $8 for matinee, but one theater has an early-bird special on first showings of the day for $5.50.)
To me, "can't wait for the sequel" is a huge compliment. There are so few movies where I actively want to see sequels. Hell, I really didn't even care if Iron Man or Batman Begins had sequels (though obviously on the latter I was quite happy it did). There are a ton of movies where I don't mind the idea of a sequel, and I will go see them, but this is the first movie in a while where I'm excited about seeing sequels.
Possibly because of how much I loved Holmes as a kid, also in no small part due to RDJ's absolute awesometacularness.
Though I had a hell of a time picking up the conversations the first time around. I couldn't make out what Holmes and Watson were saying half the time, but I guess my ears adjusted the second time because I understood it all.
xbl - HowYouGetAnts
steam - WeAreAllGeth
Snatch was meh. I enjoyed it, it wasn't terrible, but Lock, Stock was by far the better movie. I can't imagine a time when I'd sit down and watch Snatch again.
LS&TSB was great, yeah. And I dug Snatch. But those are the two movies I think of when someone says "Guy Ritchie," and I haven't seen most of his other movies. And they don't seem the type of films that would engender such hate.
RocknRolla was pretty decent too, with a really great soundtrack.
Actually, the obvious setup for the sequel was probably the only thing that really bugged me about the movie. I mean, I understand that everything needs to be a trilogy now, but they weren't subtle about it at all.
I think Snatch is the superior film as a stand alone, but if you've seen Lock, Stock before you've seen snatch you probably think Snatch is pretty feh given the huge number of overlaps in style, character and story.
Was enjoyable, your head is safe :-)
Yea, this was my complaint. I wouldn't mind at all seeing a sequel, but it really didn't need to be so obviously setup in the movie. It was moving very close to breaking immersion.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
I haven't read the books, but I assume they were hinting at Moriarty? In the movie,
Moriarty is a Drow, I think.
Who are other good evil-types who could play Moriarty? Or d'you think he should be cast completely against the villain-type, like with a Brad Pitt or George Clooney?