The Sherlockians! discussion

Another remake of Sherlock Holmes, with Robert Downey Jr. as Holmes and Jude Law as Watson.

I have mixed feelings about this movie. I thought the plot was fatastic, and though Holmes's personality seemed a bit off, his character was phenominal. The problem and solution was very clever, though it was very unlike the original books.

The thing I didn't like: Watson. Ugh, his character was AWFUL! He was just too... annoyed by Holmes's behavior. He was so annoyed by every little thing he did, while in the books he was WAY more patient. His character was stretched way too far for this movie.

One part I thought was interesting: Holmes and Watson team up with... IRENE ADLER! Yup. It seems prettly unlikely, but it worked really well.
The casting of Adler (Rachel McAdams) was perfect, too.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0988045/

IRENE ADLER!!! AWESOME!!!

Have you seen it?

No.

Aw, you have to watch it! It's really good!

Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0hXhG...

I will eventually.

The movie was awesome, I heard there's gonna be a sequel with Professor Moriarty as the main antagonist. I can't wait!!! :D

I probably critisized it a lot up above, but it really was a great movie! One of the best parts was how he would think through the attack in his head in slow motion then actually do it in a few seconds. Holmes really seemed like more of a superhero in this one. (Not that he wasn't before :D)

I watched the movie and loved it! I do agree with your first post, Sammy, about Watson's character being very different. Did any one notice that in the books, Holmes deducing methods would usually surprise Watson, but in the movie Watson was much more clever (not to say that in the books he was dumb or anything)? I don't know maybe it was just me.

Yeah, Watson was just different. I was annoyed by how annoyed he was by Holmes's experiments, but I did like how he was less floppy and helped with the cases.

Same here.....I think they did more with chemistry in the movie too (but that didn't bother me).

There was a lot more fighting, too. In the books, a lot of fighting is mentioned, but it seems like Watson isn't usually there when Holmes does!

Yeah but fighting really made the movie even more awesome!

I know a lot of people didn't like that because it wasn't like the canon, but at least it was something different! I thought it was really cool how the entire fight scene would go through Holmes's head before it actually happened.

I know! That was really awesome, especially because when most fight scenes happen, the action is too fast for you to really understand exactly what happened. When they slowed it down I realized how much every hot hurt and how much more I did not want to meet Holmes in a dark alley. Lol!!!!

And he kept experimenting on Watson's dog!
"What have you done to Gladstone this time?!"
"A new anesthetic. He doesn't mind."

Also, that's an awesome name for a dog. That's not too different than the books, either. In A Study in Scarlet, Watson has a bulldog, but it doesn't say its name. And in the end Holmes kills it by giving it a pill he found at the crime scene! Poor doggy :(

Awwwww that's sad . :(

I forgot about the dog.

speaking of dogs and sherlock holmes, I finished The Hound of the Baskervilles. It was AMAZING!!! I found out who the criminal was as soon as they mentioned his name though.

DON'T SAY THE NAME! (haven't read it!)

A PERSON!!!!!!!!!!!!

By the way, I finished The Valley of Fear.

Yeah, her character was quite a bit different from the books, but it somehow worked out really well. :)

Not a fan of the movie. At all. I'm always excited for taking Holmes in a new direction (most tastefully and succesfully done with "The Young Sherlock Holmes" film from the 1980's and the Basil Rathbone/Nigel Bruce films and radio plays, but there needs to be some grounding in the canon - other than names of characters, there was none. On top of that, I thought it was quite boring. Holmes is like Shakespeare - a modern presentation needs to have the story at the core in order for the "modern" costumes to add to the layer of complexities rather - otherwise it's just show.

Oh, I completely forgot about Young Sherlock Holmes! I thought that movie was a great example of Holmes taken in a new direction. Although Holmes and Watson never new eachother as children, I could totally picture them solving mysteries anyway. BBC Sherlock took it in a new (and very modern) direction as well. I'm just dissapointed to hear that the second series won't air until 2012!

Actually, I must say that I'm a little confused about that. I clearly remember that in a Scandal in Bohemia Holmes wasn't romantically attatched to Irene Adler, but she stood out to him because she was THE woman, the only one to outsmart him. But I always hear other SH fans saying that Adler was the only person he ever loved... Did I miss something in that story?

I was thinking of maybe a little envy but some admiration as well :)

He doesn't love her.....but he did ask for the picture of her, didn't he?

Yeah, he did. He wanted something to remind him of her and the case.

Oh, and I'm back, BTW. FINALLY!!!

HI!

Hmm, I can't say I liked anything about these movies. Except for the costumes, and some of the humor. But yea, as someone mentioned above, just because you have characters with the same names as the story, and the same setting doesn't add any significance if you don't have some essence of the stories as well. Which these movies didn't really seem to.
And for some reason I couldn't get past Downey Jr.'s 'British' accent - it didn't seem real enough for me. The BBC series is more for me, I reckon :P

BBC is better but I kinda liked this one

These movies while interesting are not like a Sherlock Holmes story at all. None of the characters are true to the books. I love the BBC series. It is written by two really good fans of Holmes and the passion I think is what makes the difference.

It was good, but nowhere near the brilliance of the BBC show.

I didn't like these at all. They portrayed Sherlock as an action character, a womanizer, and made it more like espionage than the amazing brain of Sherlock Holmes.

I don't think I even want to try them . . . :/

Who portrayed Holmes the best?

https://www.goodreads.com/poll/show/9...

I much prefer Downey to Cumberbatch's Sherlock and the series overall. The main problem with the BBC Sherlock is the 21st century. I also had issues with Cumberbatch's portrayal as almost trying to be Autistic. While I myself have Autism, and while there are things about Sherlock that lend itself to being thought of as Autistic, I don't think Sherlock was. I believe Cumberbatch at one point even said Sherlock was Autistic. Sherlock actually could relate to people on occasion, and when he didn't it was usually because he didn't want to. He had allies in all sections of society. Remember Shinwell Jones from the Illustrious Client or the Irregulars?