• Search
  • Member List
  • Help
  • Random Thread

  • Adaptations
    I was reading a review of the new Sherlock Holmes film, A Game of Shadows, the other day, and the critic seemed struck by how different the original Holmes of Arthur Conan Doyle's stories is from this new action hero played by Robert Downey Jr. Where the old Holmes was fastidious, almost obsessive compulsive, about his home and appearance, the new Holmes is slovenly. Where the old was a precise intellectual, the new is a laddish adventurer, and so on.
    Personally, I find this deeply annoying. I understand that Guy Ritchie isn't making art, and I'm perfectly fine with the addition of more action to the plot, but was it really necessary to change so much about the character's personality? Are modern audiences really so anti-intellectual that their heroes have to invariably be boorish, adolescent pricks?
    didn't know SH was a hero,to me he was a good detective and a very interesting charater
    I got into Sherlock Holmes when I was very young and after reading all the Doyle collections, I ventured into the fan fiction. For someone who followed the authors that contributed to collections such as The Further Adventures of Sherlock Holmes, it's easy to see where Ritchie comes up with this stuff. The original Holmes was brilliant, physically very strong and apparently the greatest disguise artist of all time, but he was also not very neat(except with information), addicted to opium and quite a hard person to get along with. Even his friend Dr. John Watson was hard pressed to live with the man because of his idiosyncrasies. The last two movies with Downy Jr., seem to follow the trend established years ago with the 'Further' books.

    Wildcard is awesome.
    Ah, I see. I've only read the Conan Doyle stories. He was physically very strong in those (I remember one story in which he bends a fire poker) but most of his adventures were about brain over brawn. He was indeed an opium addict, but then so were a lot of men in those days.
    In all honesty I like Downy as Holmes. I agree that he doesn't quite fit the role as originally written, but I'm partial to his acting so I put up with the discrepancies.

    Wildcard is awesome.
    I like RDJ, always have Smile

    I find the 'artistic license' taken with seemingly all book to movie adaptations deplorable.
    I really like the new Sherlock Holmes versions as well. I have no doubt that Holmes would have been terribly hard to get on with (if he'd been real Smile) and I definitely don't think Robert Downey Jr fits into the category of "boorish, adolescent prick"... he's still highly intellectual, just vague in the manner of both the opium addict and the distracted, obsessively one-track genius.

    But then, I think Guy Ritchie films definitely qualify as art, so maybe I'm biased Big Grin
    I like the movies - I just decided not to wind them up in my mind with the books. I really abhor the trashing of good literature in order to make a movie (including kiddie movies).

    Leanne, SNATCH is one of my all time faves.
    "You like dugs?"

    It's a beauty. I was kind of disappointed not to see Holmes packing a bit more firepower Smile
    "I thought you said he was a getaway driver. What the fuck can he get away from, eh? "

    Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)
    Rant Central
    Speak Your Mind