Sherlock Holmes Trailer

[Mark]

I do agree that past interpretations of the character in movies often lacked the physical side of Holmes.

But they all bend the fireplace poker eventually.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

Richards, if you're still reading this, I wasn't evangelizing, merely pointing out that it might not suck. This might fail. That's always a possibility with a beloved character. But I also don't think we should pre-judge it quite yet.

I have two reasons for that:

1) Holmes is the single most filmed character in history, and yet there has been very little variety in his characterization. As such, I think they should try some new flavors. They might end up with a bad mix. This happens. They might also stumble into something good. But doing yet another Holmes film with someone trying to channel Basil Rathbone's performance wouldn't make sense to me.... why spend $10+ to see that when I could just put some Basil Rathbone in the Netflix queue? I'd rather have them go too far into the bushes and fail than have them clone a previous version and fail. At least we'll have learned something.

2) We have seen a trailer. Hollywood's trailers are marketing at best and bald-faced lies at worst. Based on my personal study of the correspondence between trailers and the movies they represent..... that trailer is equally likely to be attached to a film that is a pure action movie, a highly cerebral suspense film, a romantic comedy, or a live action revival of the Smurfs.

And I'm sadly not exaggerating all that much with (2).

 

[Richards]

I am still reading this, and the movie certainly may not suck -- for some of you. Unfortunately, a Sherlock Holmes movie that depicts him as having poor personal hygiene and not only visiting a prostitute but also getting outsmarted by one has already crossed my own personal "this is going to suck" line. The rest of the movie may be fantastic, but to me, those interpretations alone have guaranteed that I, for one, am not going to enjoy it.

And for the record, I have no problem with different actors emphasizing different aspects of the Holmes persona. Had they decided to play up the physical aspect and make a more "summer blockbuster" film than is traditional for a Holmes movie, I'd have been fine with it. But here's the important distinction: I don't mind emphasizing some aspects and de-emphasizing others, but I won't stand by and have other, non-canonical aspects grafted onto the Holmes character. When you've done that - as this movie certainly has, even judging by "just a trailer" - then that character has stopped being Sherlock Holmes, and has become something else entirely.

Again, had they made the changes they did to Holmes' character and made a movie about that character - without insisting that this was still Sherlock Holmes - I'd have been fine with it. Robert Downey Jr. plays a smelly, Victorian Age detective who gets outsmarted by prostitutes when he's "thinking with other body parts than his brain" - sounds fine. I might even enjoy it. But insist that this is still Sherlock Holmes? No. Emphatically no.

I enjoy the TV shows Monk and House MD. Each took Sherlock Holmes - or rather, various aspects of him - made some changes, switched some stuff around, and came up with a very enjoyable character that I can really get behind. I just wish this movie had done the same, rather than using the approach they did, which I find insulting to the character of Holmes.

Johnathan

 

[Mark]

And for the record, I have no problem with different actors emphasizing different aspects of the Holmes persona. Had they decided to play up the physical aspect and make a more "summer blockbuster" film than is traditional for a Holmes movie, I'd have been fine with it.

Young Sherlock Holmes walks that line culminating in an extensive fencing scene.

Young Sherlock Holmes (1985)

 

[TheNovaLord]

Trailer looks like a fine fun victorian romp...

...cant wait for the sherlock homes trailer to come out!!

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

That's a fair assessment, but I do think you may be over-detecting deviation a little. Rather than being outsmarted, one could read that scene as him being physically overpowered by a cheap shot.

OK... that might not be canonical either, but I have a further interpretation that I would find acceptable, so as long as we're interpreting wily nily, I'll throw my hat into the ring.... If the woman in question is indeed THE woman, and the Holmes in the movie is, on some level, really Holmes.... it is possible that what makes Irene Adler "THE woman" is that she is the only person Holmes can't anticipate.

I mean, if you take the character as written, he must be bored to death by 99% of the population always doing exactly what he expects them to do. Someone with the capacity to surprise him would probably be mesmerizing.

Heck, that's one of the things that assured me I had found my wife. 10 years in and she can still surprise me regularly. Most people stop surprising me MUCH sooner than that, and I'm not a tenth as intuitive as Holmes is written (of course, who is?).

Yes, it's a stretch, but if the final product can be read with that interpretation, I'll be pretty tickled, whether RDJ pulls off the rest of Holmes or not.

As a side note, I find House to be a much more realistic interpretation of Holmes than most straight up Holmes movies have been. There is a tendency with straight Holmes movies to present a nearly inhuman character with his flaws basically buffed down to nothing (except arrogance). In reality, a person that analytical tends to have very, very broken relationships and interpersonal interactions, IME, along with other.... idiosyncrasies and neuroses. The trick with interpreting Holmes in a realistic manner is very much in picking your neuroses, but if you don't at least pick some, the character is a cardboard cut-out when you put him on screen.

Besides, there's a reason Doyle had to invent Moriarty. Holmes was too good for real drama. He had to create a super-genius evil guy in order to challenge his super-genius good guy. It's the Superman problem in the intellectual realm. A less omniscient Holmes with more flaws that can be exploited is practically a necessity in order to have legitimate drama. IMO, of course. YMMV, and all that.

 

[Mark]

Yes, it's a stretch, but if the final product can be read with that interpretation, I'll be pretty tickled, whether RDJ pulls off the rest of Holmes or not.

Is it possible he is an American actor playing an Australian white guy pretending to be black guy who is acting as a British white guy who is pretending to be Holmes?

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

That is also a valid interpretation

 

[Klaus]

That's a fair assessment, but I do think you may be over-detecting deviation a little. Rather than being outsmarted, one could read that scene as him being physically overpowered by a cheap shot.

OK... that might not be canonical either, but I have a further interpretation that I would find acceptable, so as long as we're interpreting wily nily, I'll throw my hat into the ring.... If the woman in question is indeed THE woman, and the Holmes in the movie is, on some level, really Holmes.... it is possible that what makes Irene Adler "THE woman" is that she is the only person Holmes can't anticipate.

I mean, if you take the character as written, he must be bored to death by 99% of the population always doing exactly what he expects them to do. Someone with the capacity to surprise him would probably be mesmerizing.

Heck, that's one of the things that assured me I had found my wife. 10 years in and she can still surprise me regularly. Most people stop surprising me MUCH sooner than that, and I'm not a tenth as intuitive as Holmes is written (of course, who is?).

Yes, it's a stretch, but if the final product can be read with that interpretation, I'll be pretty tickled, whether RDJ pulls off the rest of Holmes or not.

As a side note, I find House to be a much more realistic interpretation of Holmes than most straight up Holmes movies have been. There is a tendency with straight Holmes movies to present a nearly inhuman character with his flaws basically buffed down to nothing (except arrogance). In reality, a person that analytical tends to have very, very broken relationships and interpersonal interactions, IME, along with other.... idiosyncrasies and neuroses. The trick with interpreting Holmes in a realistic manner is very much in picking your neuroses, but if you don't at least pick some, the character is a cardboard cut-out when you put him on screen.

Besides, there's a reason Doyle had to invent Moriarty. Holmes was too good for real drama. He had to create a super-genius evil guy in order to challenge his super-genius good guy. It's the Superman problem in the intellectual realm. A less omniscient Holmes with more flaws that can be exploited is practically a necessity in order to have legitimate drama. IMO, of course. YMMV, and all that.

And there you have it. Hugh Laurie playing Sherlock Holmes would be casting genius!

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

And there you have it. Hugh Laurie playing Sherlock Holmes would be casting genius!

I'd watch Hugh Laurie do pretty much anything at this point. I have been accused of having a man-crush, though, so I may not be an unbiased viewer.

Suspicion: He would be more acceptable to Holmes purists, at least some of whom seem to object to RDJ on principle, but Hollywood being Hollywood, he wouldn't be considered a big enough name.