Holmes, Sweet Holmes

[rusty_armour]

I realized today that they've started showing commercials for Guy Ritchie's Travesty (a.k.a. his so-called Sherlock Holmes film), so I've decided to follow through with my plan to post something good in terms of Sherlock Holmes every time I'm exposed to that monstrosity. Okay, I was catching up on an episode of The Dollhouse from about a week ago, so the VCR fast-forwarded through the trailer. However, I was still forced to acknowledge that this...this thing is going to be released no matter how many Holmes fans boycott it. Well, thankfully, there are a number of decent productions to cancel out Guy Ritchie's Travesty. One of my favourites is the Granada version of "The Naval Treaty" with Jeremy Brett delivering Holmes's famous speech about the flowers. I'm always very amused by that scene:

"Sherlock Holmes, Naval treaty; Jeremy Brett; Flowers" (Watch on YouTube)

In other news, I'm not dead. Yes, I've been pretty quiet lately, but that's mostly because I got wrapped up with holiday preparations, etc. Last night, I rediscovered writing after too many weeks without it and it was glorious. I enjoyed it so much that I did some more writing today. A part of me is tempted to slow down because I'm working on what I hope will be my last fanfic story, but I'm having too much fun to set it aside. Well, the sooner I finish this, the sooner I can pursue "original" fiction -- something I've been putting off for much too long.

Comments

[puckrobin.livejournal.com]

I can't say I've been thrilled by the trailers either. But I'll see it because it's Sherlock Holmes and I think the greatness of Conan Doyle's characters will not be completely lost. And I'm sure Robert Downey Jr. will break some fun to the role.

It could be worse.

[rusty-armour.livejournal.com]

Oh, I don't think even Guy Ritchie could destroy the greatness of Conan Doyle's characters, but I still refuse to see his film. In my mind it's not Sherlock Holmes. It's Guy Ritchie trying to rewrite Sherlock Holmes the way he thinks Sherlock Holmes should be. I mean, he was basically quoted as saying that canon Holmes was a joke and the fans had it wrong all these years. It's one thing to want to expand on canon or provide a reinterpretation, but to my mind Ritchie wants to snub canon entirely because he's under the impression that he can do better. I'm sorry but I really don't see how it can be much worse.

Don't get me wrong. I think Robert Downey Jr. is a brilliant actor who could have done justice to the role -- if he was working with a good script and didn't have Guy Ritchie as a director. Maybe he can even help salvage the film to some degree, but it won't be enough to make me see it.

[puckrobin.livejournal.com]

The same kind of dismissive interview is common with every new version of another well-known English story. It's irritating and insulting, I know. Some of it is just silly trash-talk, some of it is marketing and some of it is pure insulting arrogance.

I think it can be much worse, because I don't think the Holmes brand has been as battered as others. Good or bad, Sherlock Holmes stories are not at the verge of being an irrelevant joke.

This might be Holmes "for the Playstation Generation" to use the producer's term for the recent BBC Robin Hood. But as far as it might depart from the canon (so did Without a Clue and many others), as poorly written as it probably will be, it will likely have some humour and life. And humour might not be as predominant an element in classic Holmes as in other stories, but it's not a bad thing.

[rusty-armour.livejournal.com]

The same kind of dismissive interview is common with every new version of another well-known English story. It's irritating and insulting, I know. Some of it is just silly trash-talk, some of it is marketing and some of it is pure insulting arrogance.

That's true. It certainly isn't the first time I've come across such an interview. I guess I just found Ritchie's interview more dismissive and insulting than some of the other interviews I've read.

I think it can be much worse, because I don't think the Holmes brand has been as battered as others. Good or bad, Sherlock Holmes stories are not at the verge of being an irrelevant joke.

Sorry. I should have read your original comment more carefully. You meant the situation in general. In that case, you're absolutely right. I think the Holmes brand is still in pretty good shape and the stories aren't on the verge of being an irrelevant joke.

This might be Holmes "for the Playstation Generation" to use the producer's term for the recent BBC Robin Hood.

Yeah, that sounds about right to me. *g*

But as far as it might depart from the canon (so did Without a Clue and many others), as poorly written as it probably will be, it will likely have some humour and life. And humour might not be as predominant an element in classic Holmes as in other stories, but it's not a bad thing.

Oh, I have no problem with humourous takes on Sherlock Holmes. I've read some parodies that I really enjoyed. And I absolutely love Without a Clue. This might sound like I'm contradicting myself, but I don't mind writers departing from canon if they have a good reason for it. In the case of Without a Clue, the writers were exploring an alternate theory about who Sherlock Holmes may have really been. I thought it was clever and hilarious. And rather than dismissing canon, the writers were having some fun with it.

My issue with Ritchie is that he seems to be cashing in on those elements of canon that will provide the most shock value. I know I'm only going by interviews and the one trailer I forced myself to watch, but that's the impression I'm getting. Maybe I'll be wrong and the film will have enough humour and life to sustain it. However, I'll have to leave it to other fans to discover if this is true. I just can't stomach the idea of seeing the film.

[windrose.livejournal.com]

I'll see it because it's Holmes (after a fashion) and because I like Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law. But as far as I'm concerned, Jeremy Brett is the One True Holmes, and always will be.

[rusty-armour.livejournal.com]

Well, I hope you enjoy it. I like Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law too, but not enough to see the film. I still can't accept it as Holmes. However, I agree with you 100% about Jeremy Brett. :-D

[puckrobin.livejournal.com]

My hope is I'll find it dumb fun with some cute moments to enjoy. I wouldn't be surprised if it's worse than that. I'd be astonished - judging from the trailer - if it were any better.

I think the slow-mo/speed-up film tricks in the Holmes trailer are hackneyed by now, but it's not the last trailer to use cliched camera tricks in service of an old story.

[grondfic.livejournal.com]

I was dead against it when I saw the trailer; but everyone says it's slashtastic, so I expect I'll go (even if only to be able to say that it's crass stuff compared with fans' efforts!).

[rusty-armour.livejournal.com]

I've also heard that it's slashtastic, but even that argument doesn't seem to be swaying me. However, seeing the film in the interests of exposing it -- through an in-depth analysis of how the film measures up (or doesn't measure up) to the fans' efforts -- could definitely be a worthwhile endeavour. I'm sure it would make very interesting reading, indeed! *g*

[radiogaga80.livejournal.com]

Ehm... now.... I didn't know there was going to be a Sherlock Holmes movie until you mentioned it because it hasn't been in the media here yet but I think the trailer doesn't look too bad. Having said that, I admit that I could never get to like Sherlock Holmes because it was just too British and stiff for me so I might like the looser approach. However, I can understand how you feel because ever since I heard there was going to be a new Robin Hood movie I groaned "Oh... NOT another one!" and pretty much refuse to watch anything related to that movie. *g*

[rusty-armour.livejournal.com]

To be honest, I usually get excited by the prospect of another Holmes pastiche or production because I can't seem to get enough of the Great Detective. However, it's an entirely different story when the pastiche or production in question doesn't quite measure up. I can understand your reaction to the new Robin Hood movie because it sounds like it could be a disaster. And after BBC Robin Hood, I think we deserve something good. *g*

[puckrobin.livejournal.com]

Maybe this is like the Colin Baker and Sylvester McCoy years.

[rusty-armour.livejournal.com]

LOL! You could be right. Maybe the Christopher Eccleston and David Tennant years are still to come. *g*

BTW I really enjoyed The Waters of Mars. Yes, it was quite dark, but I found it deliciously dark rather than depressingly dark. While Children of the Earth really bummed me out, The Waters of Mars left me sitting there with my mouth open and thoughts churning in my head. Other fans might disagree, but I thought it was pretty good stuff. :-)

[puckrobin.livejournal.com]

I enjoyed both Waters of Mars and Children of Earth, although I thought Children had some big logic fails.

[dubghall.livejournal.com]

Somewhere I read that Guy R. thought that this movie would be more true to the intent of the original stories than the other adaptations (can't find that again). Almost choked on my coffee....

[rusty-armour.livejournal.com]

LOL! Okay, now I'm definitely convinced that Ritchie is either on drugs or has completely lost his mind! *g*

[puckrobin.livejournal.com]

When Coppola's Dracula came out, I could tell which movie reviewers had read the novel and which ones hadn't. The ones who hadn't had bought into the studio PR that it was just like the novel. Ritchie probably is on drugs and has lost his mind, but I think that's just PR BS. And as journalists no longer actually do their [string over swear words used to express my extreme anger towards the state of modern journalism deleted] jobs, the filmmakers get away with it.

Just as every new Robin Hood production - except Men in Tights, of course - runs articles saying in their version, he doesn't wear tights, the outlaws aren't called the Merry Men, and we've made it all hip and modern and dark. It would be nice for a change to see an interviewer call them on it.

[njc2007.livejournal.com]

I was never a Holmes fan. I found it appeared just too staid for my liking. I expect to see this movie because it seems like good fun. I'm not considering it will be anything like true to the original Holmes. On a positive note, maybe it will expose more people to Holmes who will then become fans. If this movie causes more people to take notice of ACD's works, this is good. It doesn't matter how people discover the genre.

[rusty-armour.livejournal.com]

You make an excellent argument, njc2007. You've pointed out the only positive aspect of the film -- as far as I'm concerned. If it does succeed in introducing people to ACD and the genre then I will give the film due recognition for that. It's not enough to make me want to see it, but I'd be willing to acknowledge any good it might do in that respect.

[avictoriangirl]

I can understand how you feel. It's like RoS, once you've seen that, no other Robin Hood will ever do, but I'm going to go watch the movie just because it's Sherlock Homes and I love Robert Downey, Jr. I've also heard it's very slashy, and, well ... you know I can't resist that! ;)

[rusty-armour.livejournal.com]

But that's not the problem for me. I'm fond of many Sherlock Holmes pastiches, films and productions. I mean, the Granada series (before about 1990) will probably always be my favourite, but there are several other Holmes projects that I've embraced over the years. My problem is that Ritchie's film doesn't seem like Sherlock Holmes to me. I mean, I can understand why other people want to see it (because of Robert Downey, Jr. and the slash), but that's not enough for me. However, I still hope that you enjoy the film. If you're a big Robert Downey, Jr. fan then I'm guessing you will.

[bakerybard.livejournal.com]

I have no comment on Holmes whatsoever, I just wanted to say... Hurrah for Pursuing Original Fiction! (and also point out that Sing for Your Supper also works for test-driving story ideas and characters that won't necessarily end up in scripts)

[rusty-armour.livejournal.com]

Thank you! :-) I was supposed to start writing original fiction this year, but I fell behind with you-know-what and accidentally wrote a couple of Primeval fics. However, once I finish the last fic I'm working on, I'm going to focus on an idea I have for a novel. I'm still running a lot of details through my head, and I'll need to do some research, but I think it's something I might be able to get off the ground.

I didn't realize that test-driving story ideas and characters was an option with Sing for Your Supper. I'll certainly keep it in mind. At the moment, I'm afraid to share my ideas and characters with anyone as I'm still doing a lot of brainstorming and my idea for a novel is a little...out there. *g* However, at some point, I may find myself following your excellent advice. :-)

[lazigyrl.livejournal.com]

Personally, I am torn by the movie. On the one hand I love Robert Downey Jr. and will probably end up watching it simply for him (though whether I see it in the theatre or wait till it gets to TMN is yet to be decided). On the other hand, not a big fan of Guy Ritchie.

I won't be able to judge the accuracy of his interpretation of ACD since I haven't read any Sherlock Holmes stories. I've read ACD, just not his most famous character. Strange, I know. I've seen some strong arguments using ACD's own words to support the movie. And I've seen strong arguments against the movie, doing the same. One way or another, it's created a new interest in a timeless character which I figure, has to be a good thing.

[rusty-armour.livejournal.com]

Personally, I am torn by the movie. On the one hand I love Robert Downey Jr. and will probably end up watching it simply for him (though whether I see it in the theatre or wait till it gets to TMN is yet to be decided). On the other hand, not a big fan of Guy Ritchie.

I hear ya. It's got to suck if you love Robert Downey, Jr. but aren't a big fan of Guy Ritchie. I have to admit that if I love an actor enough, I'll often find myself watching a movie I would normally avoid (the latest example being The Prince & Me for the sake of Ben Miller), so I can understand why Robert Downey, Jr. fans are excited about The Travesty.

I won't be able to judge the accuracy of his interpretation of ACD since I haven't read any Sherlock Holmes stories. I've read ACD, just not his most famous character. Strange, I know.

It might possibly be a little strange, but ACD would be thrilled by the news! *g* I have to confess that the only non-Holmes work I've read by ACD (as far as I can remember) is The Lost World. I keep meaning to read more and hope to do so at some point. I do have a copy of The Coming of the Fairies and I'd really like to read Sir Nigel, The White Company and the other Challenger stories.

I've seen some strong arguments using ACD's own words to support the movie. And I've seen strong arguments against the movie, doing the same. One way or another, it's created a new interest in a timeless character which I figure, has to be a good thing.

Well, that's the one positive thing about the film: it should create new interest in Sherlock Holmes. :-)

[alysscarlet.livejournal.com]

I've actually heard some quite good things about this movie. Mostly because the critics say it is the least Guy-Ritchie-like, Guy Ritchie movie! And it's very slashy. :-)

[rusty-armour.livejournal.com]

Well, I'd be happy to be proven wrong if it's actually a good Holmes film. I'll admit that the slashiness makes it almost tempting, but not tempting enough for me. *g*

[boobamiaow.livejournal.com]

I might see it-undecided atm. I'm not a Holmes fan as such, so nothing can be ruined for me in that respect. I do Love Lock Stock and RocknRolla so may see it. My dad is a huge Holmes fan and he is chomping at the bit to see it. He is also extremely easily pleased by films no matter how crap they are. A point I always bring up with him (of course you liked it, you're easily pleased and you have crap taste) that sort of thing ;p

[rusty-armour.livejournal.com]

LOL! Your dad sounds a bit like my brother, though, surprisingly, he told me that the new Sherlock Holmes movie looked stupid. I assume this is due to years of brainwashing from me, though it was nice to hear all the same. *g* Well, I hope you enjoy the film if you decide to see it. By the sounds of it, your dad will. ;-)

[grondfic.livejournal.com]

One GOOD thing about the new movie - it has Mark Strong playing the villain. Now he is just splendiferous at doing that (he played Septimus in Star Dust and King Mark in Tristan and Isolde.

I'd look to him for most of the slash! (What? Homes/Watson? Stale!)

[grondfic.livejournal.com]

Oops sorry - he wasn't King Mark, he was Wictred!

[rusty-armour.livejournal.com]

I'll have to re-watch Star Dust because I'm having trouble picturing Mark Strong. I'd probably recognize the actor if I saw him as I've probably seen him in other things. Well, not Tristan and Isolde. I haven't had a chance to watch that yet.

BTW if you're looking for Holmes/Watson slash, I would definitely recommend One Week (http://janeturenne.livejournal.com/29678.html). I'm still reading it (having only reached "Tuesday"), but I'm loving it so far!