Robert Downey Jr. is SHERLOCK HOLMES (A Game of Shadows)

Extremely loosely based on The Final Problem, you mean, judging by that trailer... But yeah, you do have a point.

Oh, I'm pretty sure this one will be fun, too - I actually quite enjoyed the first one. It's just... not THE Sherlock Holmes.

Also, I agree with Everton on this issue.

 

Hm, I'm not too worried about the movie being THE Sherlock Holmes or not. I mean: I've already read and seen all Sherlock Holmes in most possible ways, so I'm not too interested in a big budget Baskerville Hound, for example. And if kids, or modern audiences, are intrigued enough by Guy Ritchie's movies to check the original canon: fantastic; after all, my first contact with Holmes was the animated Hayao Miyazaki version, with the anthropomorphical animals and the steampunk concoctions.

 

I can see the merit in creative interpretations of classic texts, but my first question when I find out an adaption of x is underway (particularly if we haven't yet had a killer adaptation for many many years - or ever) is "How close are they sticking to the original?" If it's a great text, then there's a reason why. Once you've cracked that, then move on to more outlandish or silly visions of it. Richie's franchise is the biggest and most widely promoted adaptation of Holmes in an age, and my first instinct is that if vast numbers of kids are going to come into contact with the franchise for the first time that experience should be faithful in spirit. It shouldn't be a Hollywood action film with the Holmes brand plastered all over it. I almost think there's a degree of social responsibility in bringing something like Holmes to the big screen. If you are making this film, you are the vessel by which a generation will first encounter him. That's important. It's cultural heritage and should therefore be treated with the respect it's - IMO - not getting (Moffat excepted).

 

We're looking at it from different perspectives. I find Sherlock Holmes to be slightly above Doc Savage and The Shadow. I'm not too mad about adaptations of that kind of material not being faithful to the originals, just like I don't mind The Dark Knight having little to do with the original Batman comics. If we were talking about a cyberpunk version of Don Quixote, for example, I'd be with you.

 

Fair enough. I'd have to concede on The Dark Knight point, actually. Although not faithful to the original comics it flies because it's such a well made film - you gain from the experience (and I guess it doesn't mean as much to me as Holmes). Richie's Holmes is just fun fluff using a name to sell itself. That ain't Holmes - for me at least.

LATE EDIT: Clarification.

 

Okay, maybe TDK wasn't the right example, as it really is a great repurposing of the Batman character and mythos (a character that originally was little more than a Zorro pastiche with a bat motif, let's be honest here). I certainly share a desire for more "cerebral" and less fluffy big budget movies, adaptations of existing material or not.

 

I see what you're getting at.

And 'repurposing'... there's the word I was groping for.



btw, would anyone be kind enough to post the 1080p Quicktime file link for this trailer, please? For some reason I can't get the Apple site to work and have so far only seen the trailer on YouTube.

 

Looks great, can't wait. However minor it was in the trailer I liked seeing Watson amd Mary in their wedding march.

 

Consider my ticket bought.

 

I wouldn't go quite as far but I agree.

 

http://trailers.apple.com/movies/wb/sherlockholmes2/sherlockholmes2-tlr1_1080p.mov

 

Thanking you.

 

SpinoffOnline's (fairly positive) review

 

I just saw this today. I think it is just as good as the first. Jared Harris did great as Moriarty. I have never read the actual books, though I understand much of the lore. I do not have anything to compare Moriarty with so I have no clue if he is not portrayed as in the books and I say thank goodness because he stands right up to Holmes on every level and it's fun to watch.

Mycroft: Fun scenes with him but I was expecting him to be a tad more important.

The action is awesome. It does not need a 3d treatment though there are scenes in his film that would have looked incredible in said format.

 

I'm still pissed this film doesn't open here until January.

 

I found the action of the first movie off-putting. Sherlock Holmes is cool because of his mind, not his fighting skills.

I turned the movie off in the middle of the first fight scene because WHY DOES EVERYTHING HAVE TO BE SO DUMB NOWADAYS?????

YMMV

 

Agreed. The bullet time artillery bombardment in the forest would have looked amazing in 3D.

 

I thought the movie was rather

 

I shall not be seeing this movie.

 

But it might have the Hobbit trailer in front of it...

I will be seeing this film - I take it as a fun romp, extremely loosely based on the books. And I want to see Stephen Fry as Mycroft. But of course, the REAL Sherlock will come to BBC on New Year's Day...

 

Lets just say I hope we get more Mycroft in the next one...

 

Curses!

I'd forgotten that I would have to seek out The Hobbit trailer on the big screen as well as my computer.

 

Woooooaaaah! Could not disagree more. Ikay, maybe I could, because I do feel the "action it up" way too much, but that's just a product of the medium. The fact of the matter ist hat the movies are actually, for this day in age, refreshingly close to the source material. You want to see something that just has a brand name plastered on it with little to nothing to do with the source material, watch the G.I. Joe movie. The Sherlock Holmes movies not only GET Holmes' and Watson's characterizations, and the friendship between the two, from Holmes' constant quirkiness to Watson being his only friend and only tether to the real world, to Holmes' boxing history, etc., but they are also LOADED with tones of little references to individual Doyle stories. Considering all that, I find it crazily surprising to hear you say that they're just "plastering on" the Holmes name.

Slimy!

 

Disagreed. The BBC series is "refreshingly close to the source material" - the films took the source material, pumped them full with action, and threw in a few book lines and references for the fans to pick. For one thing, both Holmes and Watson act "modern" - they're essentially two 21st century men thrown into Victorian England. That's probably my biggest gripe with the films - that, and the excess of action (you mentioned Holmes' history with boxing - yes, that's true. But he didn't have a fistfight on every other page of the books). Which doesn't mean I can't enjoy the films - it's just that they're not REALLY about Sherlock Holmes.

 

I agree with Mar on this issue.