What, son? Jude Law? Sherlock Holmes

[Rowanomicon]

I love the Holmes stories.

I'm fairly excited about a Sherlock Holmes movie just because of that simple fact.
I like Robert Downey Jr. as an actor and I think he'll play a pretty good Holmes.

I am, however, fairly confused about the choice of Jude Law as Watson...

Thoughts from the Playground?

[BRC]

The People's Prediction.

It will be a good movie. Well acted, decently written, with some intrigue, well done action, and snazzy special effects.
However, it will not be Sherlock Holmes. It will feature Sherlock Holmes characters, or at least the names of those characters, but it will not be Holmesish.
Mind you, this may just be because hollywood has a bad history with making films faithful to the stories, and because they threw in a supernatural aspect (Which isn't in itself Bad, but it's not Holmes).

Of course, the thing about characters like Holmes and Watson is they are such classics that everybody has their own idea of how they would act.
Holmes could be a Vulcan, paying attention to detail, formulating a hypothesis, investigating, and then not revealing it until he was absolutely certain. He could be a jerk who knows he's smarter than everybody else and likes to show off by deducing peoples life story by giving them a quick scan, solving mysteries by himself, then showing off by revealing the answer at the most dramatic moment possible. He could be a lovable rogue excited by the thrill of the chase who, while very intelligent, simply likes to pretend he's smarter than he is by figuring it out through careful thought and investigation, looking at things in hindsight, and claiming he knew the moment he stepped onto the crime scene.

Watson could be an intelligent, capable doctor whose simply not quite as smart as Holmes. He could be a bumbling idiot who Holmes keeps around out of pity. He could be a more straight-laced down to earth companion who keeps Holmes grounded.

[hanzo66]

Well, seems like both Holmes and Watson are to be competent characters in their own way. Watson will probably play the Straight Man/Hypercompetent Sidekick when Holmes gets too impassioned or something.

Overall looks to be a great movie. Oh and DeviantArt would probably develop a fad since they finally have a reason to ship Jude Law/Robert Downey Jr.

[Pharaoh's Fist]

Mind you, this may just be because hollywood has a bad history with making films faithful to the stories, and because they threw in a supernatural aspect (Which isn't in itself Bad, but it's not Holmes).

Hound of the Baskervilles. (Turned out to not be supernatural, but from what little I know of the movie, it could be a similar situation, where something merely appears to be supernatural.)

[BRC]

Hound of the Baskervilles. (Turned out to not be supernatural, but from what little I know of the movie, it could be a similar situation, where something merely appears to be supernatural.)
Ah, the Sherlock Doo approach.

[Cyrion]

As said above, it looks like it will be entertaining because of the actors, but the previews make it look like it may be a fairly accurate Watson but an entirely different Holmes.

[leafman]

I haven't read Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's books but is Holmes supposed to be an action hero with explosions going off all around him? I thought he was more of a detective type who only fought and got shot at occasionally.

[chiasaur11]

I haven't read Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's books but is Holmes supposed to be an action hero with explosions going off all around him? I thought he was more of a detective type who only fought and got shot at occasionally.

He can bend steel pokers...

WITH HIS BARE HANDS.

[Icewalker]

Yeah, the impression I've gotten, and more so that of my friend who is a huge Holmes fan, is that it will be a great wild detective action/adventure movie, it will be a hideous Sherlock Holmes rendition. Robert Downey Jr. is awesome, but he doesn't make a good Holmes.

[Vic_Sage]

Yeah, the impression I've gotten, and more so that of my friend who is a huge Holmes fan, is that it will be a great wild detective action/adventure movie, it will be a hideous Sherlock Holmes rendition. Robert Downey Jr. is awesome, but he doesn't make a good Holmes.
Well Holmes was originally a opium abusing ******* and RDJ is a........drug abusing ******* *Formerly* so the casting kind of fits.

[Pharaoh's Fist]

He can bend steel pokers...

WITH HIS BARE HANDS.

And he knows JUDO!

[kpenguin]

Jeremy Brett remains the definitive Holmes in my eyes. Nothing I have seen of RDJ in the trailers has done anything to overturn that.

[Haven]

He can bend steel pokers...

WITH HIS BARE HANDS.

And then straighten them out again.

[SurlySeraph]

Judging by the trailer, it's Kung Fu Holmes vs. Cthulu Cultists. I don't think there's any way this can be non-awesome.

[kpenguin]

SHERLOCK HOLMES was able to solve this case IN A CAVE with a BOX OF SCRAPS

[factotum]

Why are you confused about the choice of Jude Law as Dr. Watson? People seem to forget that the good Doctor was in his twenties when he and Sherlock first met...it's probably all those movies that show him as a bumbling old man. In the books he's actually quite competent in his own field--he just pales in comparison to Sherlock himself, but then, anybody would!

[kpenguin]

He was only in his twenties? Huh. I thought he'd be in his thirties, what with him a veteran of Afghanistan and all.

Jude just doesn't exude the feel of a veteran and a experienced doctor to me.

[Athaniar]

I haven't seen the trailer yet, but the movie sounds good. I like Sherlock Homes stories, and is easily distracted by awesome. This is probably going to be one of the few (cinema) movies in the near future worth watching.

[factotum]

He was only in his twenties? Huh. I thought he'd be in his thirties, what with him a veteran of Afghanistan and all.


Well, maybe...he was wounded at the Battle of Maiwand (1880) and met Holmes in 1888, so he could have been early 30s; not sure his exact birth date is ever specified. The point I was making was that he definitely wasn't old, nor stupid, which would be the reason most people would have difficulty seeing Jude Law in the role.

[Cheesegear]

From what I can tell in the previews, it'll be Sherlock Holmes, sure. But, with Tony Stark in the titular role.

But, yeah...Let's wait and see...

[bluewind95]

They're making this Holmes have some sort of RELATIONSHIP with Irene Adler. The REAL Holmes was asexual. Holmes only saw Irene Adler for ONE CASE. He never saw her again, though he sometimes spoke of her.

...This isn't going to be Holmes. :smallfrown:

[paddyfool]

Insofar as "action hero" goes, Conan Doyle did at various times put forward Sherlock as being a crack shot with a pistol, an expert boxer, and to have in his own words "some knowledge ofbaritsu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartitsu)".

However, the only bending of pokers that ever went on in the Sherlock Holmes stories that I remember was in the hands of one of the villains...

[Tavar]

However, the only bending of pokers that ever went on in the Sherlock Holmes stories that I remember was in the hands of one of the villains...

In the story, Homes straightened the poker after the villain left.

[Rowanomicon]

I haven't actually seen any of the trailers so I don't really know what to expect.

However RDJ does I think that he could do a good Holmes. Obviously that depends somewhat on writing, directing, and editing (as well as what the producers want).

The reason I'm confused about Jude Law is just because he doesn't strike me as Watson.
I certainly don't expect Watson to be a bumbling old man. I just haven't seen Jude Law do anything that makes me think he would be a good Watson.
Granted, I haven't studied Jude Law's work extensively.

I'd certainly love it if he does end up fitting the character well, I just don't see his casting as being as accurate as RDJ's.

We'll see when it comes out though.

[BRC]

They're making this Holmes have some sort of RELATIONSHIP with Irene Adler. The REAL Holmes was asexual. Holmes only saw Irene Adler for ONE CASE. He never saw her again, though he sometimes spoke of her.

...This isn't going to be Holmes. :smallfrown:
From what I've seen of the trailer, it might not be a relationship. They'll definitely have adler around for eye candy though.
Holmes was asexual (Watson was the ladies man), but he respected Adler because, if I remember correctly, she actually outsmarted him.

[WalkingTarget]

From what I've seen of the trailer, it might not be a relationship. They'll definitely have adler around for eye candy though.
Holmes was asexual (Watson was the ladies man), but he respected Adler because, if I remember correctly, she actually outsmarted him.

This. From what I understand, a fair amount of non-Doyle Holmes stories play up his "relationship" with the woman, though.

[Fawkes]

SHERLOCK HOLMES was able to solve this case IN A CAVE with a BOX OF SCRAPS

Oh god yes.

I'm looking forward to this movie. It looks like it'll take Sherlock Holes and ramp it up to 11.

[bluewind95]

From what I've seen of the trailer, it might not be a relationship. They'll definitely have adler around for eye candy though.
Holmes was asexual (Watson was the ladies man), but he respected Adler because, if I remember correctly, she actually outsmarted him.

As far as I read/understood, the movie makes it so Irene and Holmes kept in touch. As in... a friendship kind of relationship, even if it's not an outright romantic relationship, it's still a lot of romantic tension. Romance does not fit with Holmes, no matter how unresolved it is. He was totally asexual, the trailer doesn't paint him in that light.

But yeah, Holmes respected Irene. He just didn't really care to seek her out after she vanished with her husband.

[Haven]

As far as I read/understood, the movie makes it so Irene and Holmes kept in touch. As in... a friendship kind of relationship, even if it's not an outright romantic relationship, it's still a lot of romantic tension. Romance does not fit with Holmes, no matter how unresolved it is. He was totally asexual, the trailer doesn't paint him in that light.

Eh, to me his asexuality isn't such a central part of his character that sacrificing it is something unforgivable.

[Otogi]

Jude Law actually played Watson in a former role. I forgot what story or what version, but I'm sure you can find it on IMDB or Wikipedia.

[Athaniar]

Jude Law actually played Watson in a former role. I forgot what story or what version, but I'm sure you can find it on IMDB or Wikipedia.

Not according to IMDb, although he did play someone in an episode of some Holmes series. However, IMDb can not always be relied on.

[bluewind95]

Eh, to me his asexuality isn't such a central part of his character that sacrificing it is something unforgivable.

But it is a central part of the character. He won't waste a single opportunity to point out how attraction clouds the logic and he's all about logic. It's one of his most outspoken and central beliefs.

[Zencao]

If I remember correctly the 'romance' with him and her seems to be him getting kicked in the crotch after trying to capture her. The fact that he says "Be a lady-*CRUNCH*" doesn't scream "ROMANTIC TENSION" to me.

[bluewind95]

If I remember correctly the 'romance' with him and her seems to be him getting kicked in the crotch after trying to capture her. The fact that he says "Be a lady-*CRUNCH*" doesn't scream "ROMANTIC TENSION" to me.

Except that that kind of thing is used time and time again to precisely set up tension on whether or not they will "get together".

Can't they have a main character NOT have a romantic interest for once?

[paddyfool]

Adding romantic flavour is a common Hollywood mistake. My biggest gripe with the (generally enjoyable) Hitchhiker's Guide movie was that they basically lobotomised Trillian, thus making a romantic bit with Arthur Dent possible. But that would be thoroughly off-topic...

[The Demented One]

making films faithful to the stories, and because they threw in a supernatural aspect (Which isn't in itself Bad, but it's not Holmes).

The Giant Rat of Sumatra takes offense at this.



Judging by the trailer, it's Kung Fu Holmes vs. Cthulu Cultists. I don't think there's any way this can be non-awesome.

Shadows Over Baker Street. Buy it. You will not be disappointed.

[Irenaeus]

I'm not really a fan of in the original novels, but I have liked several spin-offs, so I'll probably give this a shot as well.

I'm a bit sceptical, though.

[turkishproverb]

The Giant Rat of Sumatra takes offense at this.


Shadows Over Baker Street. Buy it. You will not be disappointed.

Not a bad book.

However, I have to say this.

A Study In Emerald (http://www.neilgaiman.com/mediafiles/exclusive/shortstories/emerald.pdf) Read it. You'll suddenly find Shadows Over Baker Street disappointing. :smallamused:

[Moff Chumley]

Am I the only one who's okay with them messing with the original stories as long as it makes a good movie? :smallconfused:

[Brother Oni]

It depends on how much messing around they do.

Minor character re-writes and some shuffling around to make a more coherant movie (as it's limited in exposition time compared to a book) is all right by me.

Turning Holmes into a Baritisu expert who defeats hordes of cthulu-esque cultists via wuxia flying scenes, while Watson dual wields shotguns (and later upgrades to an armoured suit with a built-in Gatling gun), then finally squares off against a huge CG Elder God may make for an awesome movie, but would have Sherlock Holmes fans baying for blood.

The essence of Holmes is that he uses logic and subterfuge to solve crimes - physical confrontation is a last resort (for which he has the old soldier Watson).

[bluewind95]

It depends on how much messing around they do.

Minor character re-writes and some shuffling around to make a more coherant movie (as it's limited in exposition time compared to a book) is all right by me.

Turning Holmes into a Baritisu expert who defeats hordes of cthulu-esque cultists via wuxia flying scenes, while Watson dual wields shotguns (and later upgrades to an armoured suit with a built-in Gatling gun), then finally squares off against a huge CG Elder God may make for an awesome movie, but would have Sherlock Holmes fans baying for blood.

The essence of Holmes is that he uses logic and subterfuge to solve crimes - physical confrontation is a last resort (for which he has the old soldier Watson).

You forgot to mention that they turn him into a flirty man who thinks with his other brain. :smallfrown:

But yes. This. I SO much agree.

[The Demented One]

Not a bad book.

However, I have to say this.

A Study In Emerald (http://www.neilgaiman.com/mediafiles/exclusive/shortstories/emerald.pdf) Read it. You'll suddenly find Shadows Over Baker Street disappointing. :smallamused:
*cough*It'sInThatBook*cough*

[WalkingTarget]

Not a bad book.

However, I have to say this.

A Study In Emerald (http://www.neilgaiman.com/mediafiles/exclusive/shortstories/emerald.pdf) Read it. You'll suddenly find Shadows Over Baker Street disappointing. :smallamused:

"A Study in Emerald" was first published in the Shadows Over Baker Street collection. It is the best story in there, though, and as turkishproverb here points out, is available for free from Gaiman's website. Some of the other stories are good too, though.

edit - lousy ninjas

[paddyfool]

There used to be a rather awesome audio file of Neil Gaiman reading that aloud on the net somewhere too.

[WalkingTarget]

There used to be a rather awesome audio file of Neil Gaiman reading that aloud on the net somewhere too.

Well, if you get the audiobook of Fragile Things that he recorded you get it along with a bunch of his other stories. Dunno if that's precisely what you're remembering, though.

[pita]

I'm not a Holmes fan. I find it too irritating that it's not a fair Whodunnit.
But a new Robert Downey Jr. movie? With that British guy from every single movie in 2005? Where he fights an elder god?
I say "awesome".

[Bouregard]

Am I the only one who's okay with them messing with the original stories as long as it makes a good movie? :smallconfused:

No. I really want to see the new movie. As an old Sherlock Holmes fan I can accept a bigger focus on action as most of the deduction and mindbattles of the books would be hard to convert to a movie. And I really liked the more active Watson in the trailers. The book - Watson was a rather dumb/ passive man in contrast to Holmes and his villians, or at least appeared that way in most cases.

The movie seems to be more of a duo lead be Holmes as the book-Holmes with his tag-along Watson.

[pita]

I watched the movie, and I have to say I'm really happy with it. There was the Sherlock Scan used perfectly, even in battles (A very nice touch that I will have to check), there was a mystery with decent clues (although not decent enough for the viewer to realize exactly what's happening), and there was awesomeness with both Holmes and Watson. It was actionified, but it worked well. It was not Holmes and Watson blasting away at an Elder God with shotguns. It was Holmes and Watson figuring out a great mystery with amazing deductive skills on both parties. Mark Strong, who had me debating whether I was watching Stanley Tucci or Andy Garcia, was great as a villain. Jude Law and Robert Downey Jr are amazing as Watson and Holmes. Watson wasn't Holmes's lackey in this, but a good detective on his own merits.
And the bit at the end? Call me a sucker, but if there's a sequel, I'm all over that like flies on expletives.

[Moff Chumley]

Agreed. I saw it today, and I quite enjoyed their portrayal of the characters. And the setup for the sequal, while over the top, was pretty funny. :smallsmile:

[Semidi]

It wasn't God's gift to mankind, but it was fun and an interesting and new take on the character of Holmes and Watson--though that may just be the acting.

So yeah, not bad.

[BRC]

Holmes was Awesome. Not the traditional Holmes, but definitely a valid interpretation. The Slightly Unstable ******* genius angle is a good one, and it made for lots of very interesting on-camera stuff. It also let Jude Law play a very strong and sensible Watson as a foil for Holmes' antics. It wouldn't have worked as well written I don't think, but on film it really came through and was very entertaining. RDJ definitely put a new twist on the role.
I was glad they went with Competent Watson, instead of Bumbling Watson. This Watson was the type of guy you could imagine being an accomplished doctor, investigator, and soldier. The Holmes-Watson dynamic, while a little forced and unnatural, was very good.
The Plot was a decent one, as plots go, but the chain of events that made it up seemed a little random and disconnected. In retrospect they started making sense, but during the film itself it seemed like the plot was stumbling along like a drunkard, getting where it needed to go, but in a nonsensical, forced, and awkward manner. The Scooby-Doo ending worked out well enough, but it seemed tacked on. Almost as if they had written "Holmes vs Voldemort", and had almost finished it only to be told that Sherlock Holmes was not, in fact, the X-files in Victorian London, so he went back and made up some ways to explain things.

The Poison Gas scheme, while overcomplicated, was a good one. The Copper/Water paralytic toxin was similar. However, the "Fake rain that, if exposed to a spark, caused the guy to light on fire" really seemed over theatrical and unpredictable.
Also, there were some unnecessary things. The Hotel Scene, and the Boxing scene were both totally random and seemed stapled into the plot. And yet, they both featured predominantly in the trailers. The Boxing Scene would have worked well as a method for establishing Holmes's analytical approach to hand to hand combat, except that had already been better established in the crypt scene, and the boxing match was the last time it was used in that fashion. The hotel scene seemed like an excuse for a cheap joke they could finish off trailers with.

The obvious sequel baiting was a bit too heavy handed. Also, don't pretend you are being clever by mentioning a mysterious and sinister professor, and having him be MORIARTY. Also, keeping him cloaked in shadow, really? Can you get cheesier.


Which brings us to the unfortunate subject of Irene Adler. Holmes and Watson were different takes on Holmes and Watson. But Adler was an entierly different character.

Doyle's version of Adler was an actress who outsmarted Holmes so she could live with the man she loved. Holmes admired her for it, but it was the admiration of an expert who knows how brilliant he is, and accepts that he is beaten.

The Movie's version was some sort of YoSaffBridge-esque criminal who was infatuated with Holmes. They did a good job of making her seem competent, and yet they kept sticking her in the role of the Damsel in Distress. Movie Holmes cares for her as a human being, but I definitely didn't see any admiration on his part, more like pity than anything, mind you, I didn't see much to admire about the character. In the film, he treated her like one would treat an annoying, but impressively clever for their age ,child who is begging for attention.
At least they didn't make her into a full fledged love interest. Though, in a way, that might have been better, because it would have shown they were either ignorant of the source material, or had decided to completely throw it away. Currently we have this kind of timid break from the source material that shows that they know about it, but pointlessly decided to ignore it in this one instance.

The result was a movie that required one to know about Holmes in order to enjoy (Since so much of it, esp the Holmes/Watson working relationship,was jumped right into in the film), but that if you were actually familiar with it you would hate. Their target audience was probably somebody who had heard alot about Sherlock Holmes, but had never actually read it. Or had read some of the stories, and only half-heard others.

But, besides this, it wasn't actually a bad film. Not a Great film mind you, but a good film, I certainly enjoyed it, but parts of it made me want to facepalm.

[The Extinguisher]

This seems relevant to this threads interests:

http://www.harkavagrant.com/history/watsonsm.png

[pita]

The Poison Gas scheme, while overcomplicated, was a good one. The Copper/Water paralytic toxin was similar. However, the "Fake rain that, if exposed to a spark, caused the guy to light on fire" really seemed over theatrical and unpredictable.
Also, there were some unnecessary things. The Hotel Scene, and the Boxing scene were both totally random and seemed stapled into the plot. And yet, they both featured predominantly in the trailers. The Boxing Scene would have worked well as a method for establishing Holmes's analytical approach to hand to hand combat, except that had already been better established in the crypt scene, and the boxing match was the last time it was used in that fashion.
Disagreement on both counts.
He uses the thing he did in boxing in every single battle, just they don't always show his thought process. I counted twice (including the boxing) where they showed his thought process and twice where they didn't. They needed to show it twice to establish a pattern. The twice where they didn't show his thought process was in the battle against the huge French guy. If you pay attention, he sort of takes a break twice in the battle and observes his opponent.
And the bit with the fire rain was supposed to be overly theatrical. That was the villain's whole schtick, to be overly theatrical so people thought he did magic.
I also don't get the bit about the Watsons, posted by The Extinguisher. Jude Law's Watson was more than competent by himself, finding clues that were relevant more than once, when Holmes wasn't there.

[Irenaeus]

Seen it now. Guy Ritchie's Brazillian Jiu-Jitsu brown belt + Holmes' and Watson's Bartitsu was a good combo.

Other than that, it was enjoyable.

[The Extinguisher]

I also don't get the bit about the Watsons, posted by The Extinguisher. Jude Law's Watson was more than competent by himself, finding clues that were relevant more than once, when Holmes wasn't there.

Oh, it's nothing to the new movie specifically. I just thought it was relevant.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

Saw it last night with my dad, who's a big Holmes fan. He thoroughly enjoyed it, and said that Jude Law's Watson was actually more accurate to the literature than a lot of other Hollywood depictions of him. Also, while the fight scenes were exciting, Holmes' deductive skills remained the focus, rather than the brawling, which was a smart move on the writers' part. Everything you see Holmes look at or touch has some relevance to the case, and by the end, just like a true Sherlock Holmes story, it all comes together and you find yourself saying "Oh yeah! Now I understand!"

My brother tagged along too, and he almost screamed for joy when he heard them playing "Rocky Road to Dublin" during the boxing scene.

[Dragonus45]

An amazing movie in many many ways. But i still think the best ending would have been an old one trashing the big old bridge while Holmes battled Mecha Moriarty at the helm of a steam boat filled with explosives aimed towards squid face.

[pita]

An amazing movie in many many ways. But i still think the best ending would have been an old one trashing the big old bridge while Holmes battled Mecha Moriarty at the helm of a steam boat filled with explosives aimed towards squid face.
Unfortunately, the anime version of the movie only comes out next year. BOOYA.
I'm tired, good night.

[chiasaur11]

Saw, dug.

Felt like there was a scene cut where Holmes does the whole pre clobbering analysis towards the end, oddly.

Too tired for better analysis.

Oh! Thought!

Liked how Constable Clark (Think that's his name. The cop with the mustache) was allowed to just be a helpful, reasonably intelligent minor character. No kludged on "He was the villain the whole time!"

[Muz]

Not a bad book.

However, I have to say this.

A Study In Emerald (http://www.neilgaiman.com/mediafiles/exclusive/shortstories/emerald.pdf) Read it. You'll suddenly find Shadows Over Baker Street disappointing. :smallamused:

And then check out The List of Seven (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_List_of_Seven) by Mark Frost. (It's actually not a Holmes book, it's a fictional story about Arthur Conan Doyle meeting an agent of the Queen who inspires the Holmes character. Plus it's got...wwwwwwwweeeeeeird stuff. :smallbiggrin:

As for the movie, I just saw it tonight. I thought it was pretty damn entertaining, and I say that as someone who's read the original stories (though that was about five years ago now). I now want:

A) A sequel

B) A movie made based on The List of Seven

C) An explanation of just how the heck you can get to the Tower Bridge from Parliament so damn fast. :smallwink: (The movie itself was entertaining enough to where I let it slide, but it still gave me a laugh. Took me about an hour to walk that distance, myself, though I was taking my time.) :smallbiggrin:

[Fin]

I assume that as they got there via the sewer system (avoiding people congestion etc) and they were running and the fact that as the crow flies getting to Tower Bridge from the Houses Of Parliament shouldn't take too long explains that speed issue.

Otherwise, watched it. Loved it.

[Coidzor]

In a way, it rather reminded me of my conception of Eberron...

[Muz]

I assume that as they got there via the sewer system (avoiding people congestion etc) and they were running and the fact that as the crow flies getting to Tower Bridge from the Houses Of Parliament shouldn't take too long explains that speed issue.

Otherwise, watched it. Loved it.

Distance as the crow flies (or the worm tunnels, as it were, going under the Thames) from Parliament to Tower Bridge: About 2.25 miles. Still seems a bit much to me, to say nothing of Irene accidentally climbing all the way UP the Tower Bridge on accident when she was trying to get away. :smallwink: (Didn't hurt my positive opinion of the movie, though, either.)

[Fifty-Eyed Fred]

Distance as the crow flies (or the worm tunnels, as it were, going under the Thames) from Parliament to Tower Bridge: About 2.25 miles.

Are you sure about that? I'm sure it's nowhere near that long. Then again, it might just be the meandering of the Thames confusing me.

[Muz]

According to my map of central London it is--assuming the scale is accurate.

[turkishproverb]

*cough*It'sInThatBook*cough*


"A Study in Emerald" was first published in the Shadows Over Baker Street collection. It is the best story in there, though, and as turkishproverb here points out, is available for free from Gaiman's website. Some of the other stories are good too, though.

edit - lousy ninjas


Oh, yea. Forgot it was in there. My bad. :smallfrown:

[Lycan 01]

Saw it. Loved it. Wouldn't mind seeing it again...

I read several Sherlock Holmes stories when I was younger, although they were somewhat abridged for younger audiences. So I had a general idea of what to expect - Holmes would be a genius able to pluck random details from his surroundings and piece them together, and Watson would actually be capable of doing a lot of work and be Holmes' helping hand and voice of reason. And, to my actual surpise, they got pretty close to what I was hoping for. I was a bit... meh... at Holmes being turned into a Victorian Age version of a ninja, but his puzzle solving and logic were amazingly done. And I was impressed that they mixed his thinking abilities with his newfound martial prowess so well... The first fight scene in the crypt made me feel better about the new streetfighter aspect of Holmes.


Also, I saw a collection of Sherlock Holmes PC games the other day at Best Buy. IIRC, there were 3, and I forgot the names, but I distinctly remember that the third one was SHERLOCK HOLMES VERSUS CTHULHU. If I'd had the money, I would have bought it right then and there. But, I don't know if its actually a good game or not. Anybody have any experience with the Sherlock Holmes PC games?


Also, where can I find a copy of this Shadows Over Baker Street? :smallconfused:

*scurries off to find that unread and forsaken copy of "Hound of the Baskervilles" he bought at a school auction last year*

[Gaelbert]

IIRC, there were 3, and I forgot the names, but I distinctly remember that the third one was SHERLOCK HOLMES VERSUS CTHULHU. If I'd had the money, I would have bought it right then and there. But, I don't know if its actually a good game or not. Anybody have any experience with the Sherlock Holmes PC games?

Never heard of it before, but as soon as I read this I thought "DO WANT!" and looked it up. It seems like it has pretty good reviews and is true to both Doyle and Lovecraft, from what I've read.

[chiasaur11]

Never heard of it before, but as soon as I read this I thought "DO WANT!" and looked it up. It seems like it has pretty good reviews and is true to both Doyle and Lovecraft, from what I've read.

And it's on Steam. Not under that title, but...

[Gaelbert]

Oh, yeah, should have mentioned that. It's called Sherlock Holmes: The Awakening.

[Lycan 01]

Does anybody know if its any good?

It should be noted that the Sherlock Holmes movie (especially the beginning) reminded me a lot of the Call of Cthulhu RPG, what with the evil plots and gritty investigation...

[Serenity]

As far as it goes, Holmes is well established in the literary canon as being both incredibly strong and a highly capable hand-to-hand combat. He can bend steel bars back into shape, and in one of the earliest stories, a professional boxer recognizes Holmes as a very talented amateur.

[Seraph]

and in one of the earliest stories, a professional boxer recognizes Holmes as a very talented amateur.


reigning champion of Boxing in the british isles, if i remember correctly.

[Shadowbane]

As far as it goes, Holmes is well established in the literary canon as being both incredibly strong and a highly capable hand-to-hand combat. He can bend steel bars back into shape, and in one of the earliest stories, a professional boxer recognizes Holmes as a very talented amateur.

Thank you for pointing this out. I always interpreted it like this: the fight scenes and such were skipped simply because any fight with Holmes a forgone conclusion.

[Haruspex_Pariah]

Saw it on Monday, thought it was worth the ticket price.

Minor nitpicks:
I didn't like RDJ's twanging of the violin. Couldn't he at least have pretended to play?
I knew Sherlock was a competent fighter, but he seems kinda violent in this one. What with his brutalizing the dude to neutralize his ability to "spit at back of head".

Other than that it was decent.

[Mikeavelli]

Irene accidentally climbing all the way UP the Tower Bridge on accident when she was trying to get away.



This was the biggest hole in the movie for me. They're in the Sewers (presumably underground) and then atop the bridge, high above the air. She's SURPRISED this happened! Similarly, the main villain somehow figured out where they were going, and followed them up there for a climactic personal confrontation instead of running for as long as he could away from the leadership of the most powerful nation on earth whom he'd just finished revealing himself as a traitor to.

I forgive the movie this because the climax was entertaining enough, but the whole setup of getting them up there didn't make a goddamn bit of sense.

[WalkingTarget]

I didn't like RDJ's twanging of the violin. Couldn't he at least have pretended to play?

Well, the scene where he's experimenting with the flies at least was a call-back to 1939's The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes starring Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce. He had only tried the chromatic scale at that point and hadn't gotten anywhere yet, though.

[Jade_Tarem]

I had always figured that Irene was not surprised that she was at the top of the bridge, but was instead surprised that it wasn't finished enough for her to continue across it. Maybe she was gambling on it being more complete than it was.

That made more sense to me, anyway, and since they didn't say one way or another, that's how I choose to interpret her bad choice of escape route. :smalltongue:

[Starbuck_II]

I agree. I think she was betting on it being more complete. But then why did she walk on the most unfinished side?
The left side seemed more complete.

[Klose_the_Sith]

This was the biggest hole in the movie for me. They're in the Sewers (presumably underground) and then atop the bridge, high above the air. She's SURPRISED this happened! Similarly, the main villain somehow figured out where they were going, and followed them up there for a climactic personal confrontation instead of running for as long as he could away from the leadership of the most powerful nation on earth whom he'd just finished revealing himself as a traitor to.

I forgive the movie this because the climax was entertaining enough, but the whole setup of getting them up there didn't make a goddamn bit of sense.



I would have thought that Irene wasn't really paying any attention to route, but simply fleeing arbitrarily. Fear can do strange things to you at times, to the extent that you can indeed wonder how you wound up somewhere - I once crossed large portions of my home city in about 20 minutes, though it took me 3 hours to make my way home.

Also she did indeed look a bit appalled that it wasn't more finished ... that's probably my favourite explanation, truth be told.

Saw it with my girlfriend, who loved it. I had very similar feelings towards it. I was quite fond of the books a couple years back, but the liberties that I actually noticed seemed rather irrelevant. I actually quite enjoyed the portrayal of Holmes that we got, including him being a bit ... wrong.

[Knaight]

Why are you confused about the choice of Jude Law as Dr. Watson? People seem to forget that the good Doctor was in his twenties when he and Sherlock first met...it's probably all those movies that show him as a bumbling old man. In the books he's actually quite competent in his own field--he just pales in comparison to Sherlock himself, but then, anybody would!

Which brings me to my question. Did Mycroft Holmes feature in this? Given that he was actually a better detective than Sherlock, and could work in any number of literary senses I'm hoping for it, but then, he isn't well known. And is a bit lazy.

[TheGreatOne]

Mycroft was given a verbal nod. At one point Holmes offers Watson an opportunity to go stay with his fiancee at his brother Mycroft's estate out in the country. Of course, Holmes would be coming along too.

[An Enemy Spy]

I agree. I think she was betting on it being more complete. But then why did she walk on the most unfinished side?
The left side seemed more complete.


because if she could teleport across the river to get to a more complete side, she wouldn't need a bridge?

[Mikeavelli]

It's still a pretty sloppy mistake for someone whose skills at observation and improvisation have, up 'till now, proven superior even to Holmes' own, especially when the bridge was clearly visible from most of London. I'm going to be perpetually unhappy with it.


It is, nevertheless, a good movie I'd recommend most anyone to see though.

[Seraph]

To be fair, if I remember correctly all the shots of the bridge made it look like there was a complete walkway at the top until the end, so I figured that she simply couldn't tell it was unfinished while looking from the ground.

[Brother Oni]

Does anybody know if its any good?

It should be noted that the Sherlock Holmes movie (especially the beginning) reminded me a lot of the Call of Cthulhu RPG, what with the evil plots and gritty investigation...

Sherlock Holmes: The Awakened is very good, but suffers from problems if you're not a FPS fan due to the camera angle.

In my case, it's because of the first person view I get simulation sickness, so can't play the game for more than 10 minutes without a couple hours lying down inbetween.
Apparently this affects more people than expected as due to the way the game runs on modern hardware, the view judders minutely constantly (the faq suggest turning down your mouse sensitivity, but then it takes several trips to turn 180 degrees).

Edit: Apparently, they've released a remastered version which allows play in third person perspective mode. I might have to try and track this down. :smallbiggrin:

[Sprainogre]

I was not expecting to like this nearly as much as I did. However, they touched on a lot of elements that many other adaptations have missed, presented the characters very well, had a wonderful little shell game with the villain, and was all in all a enjoyable flick. I'll almost certainly buy it on DVD.

[Mr. Spock]

The new movie is awesome, even if it isn't close to the book.