It is pretty wonderful, isn't it? Someone uploaded it all to YouTube, and I am ridiculously grateful to them for that, otherwise I'd never have seen it. I could pick a million tiny holes in it (must you include the blasted deerstalker? *sigh*), but really, it's too good to hate for little things like Holmes' hair colour or nose shape. Oh, don't get me started on RDJ and Law. I could write an essay on the Ritchie adaptation (and kind of am). I think it's fascinating, the new interpretations of the characters, and I wonder why so many people tend to hate it when in reality their characterisations are still entirely based on extrapolations of the canon. There's the fact that RDJ's Holmes is a little too messy to be canonial, true, and the Hollywood insistence on giving him a romantic subplot makes me rage - but the vehement dislike some people hold for that movie surprises me sometimes. (Not to mention, it's what got me into Holmes in the first place, and if it makes more people read the canon and get into other adaptations, I see no reason to complain.)
Aaand, you got a minor essay anyway. Sorry about that. Anyway, point being, you shouldn't have to apologise for your Holmes and Watson preferences in the first place, and certainly not if they're RDJ and Law. (If you preferred, say, Nigel Bruce's Watson, then I'd have a few stern words for you... XD)
I guess, I'll have to pay YouTube a visit then, and soon. :D Yes, that's awesome. And sure, that adaption wasn't perfect, but at that time still way better than some others.
Regarding the Ritchie adaption, I'm with you all the way, hon. Especially where that stupid Hollywood notion for a romance is concerned. And Irene Adler of all people! After having seen the movie I promptly posted a mini-rant on my LJ. Well, embedded in some kind of Sherlock-Holmes-movie-review, but I think, the "romance-rant" took up quite a bit of space. *g* (If you want me to, I'll link you to it, but you gotta tell me, because I'd have to un-f-lock it first. :)
*laughs* I don't mind. Essay away! ;)
No. God, no! I could never like Nigel Bruce's Watson! Argh! Seeing him in that TV adaption almost killed me! But I was so, SO happy when I watched the two adaptions with Ian Hart as Watson. Not necessarily because of the Holmses (Richard Roxburgh and Rupert Everett), not even particularly because of the cases, but because of that Watson! I think, that was the first time I've seen a Watson, who wasn't portrayed as completely stupid and absolutely incapable of anything. (And yeah, Michael Fassbender was an added bonus. *G*) Allow me to quote myself here: I’m very sure that Arthur Conan Doyle never intended for Watson to be perceived as the dense, incapable, mostly plump dumb-ass he is mostly portrayed as! Dr. John H. Watson was a physician and a military officer, who fought in a war (and as such had experience with all kinds of weapons, I imagine). He couldn’t have been that stupid! (Plus, I really don’t think Sherlock Holmes would have put up with Watson, let alone lived with him for that long a time, if he’d been truly that dense! Holmes doesn’t exactly suffer fools gladly, does he?) Watson might not have been just as smart and observant as Holmes, but who was? Everyone pales in comparison with Sherlock Holmes! And, frankly, I think Watson handled himself quite deftly.
Erm... yeah. So, you didn't get a minor essay, but you can see, that that particular topic has troubled me for quite a while now. :)
AUGH YES. The problem with Ritchie's use of Adler is that it actually makes sense in context, if you take out the question of Holmes' sexuality. (Which I realise is sacriledge, but for the sake of simplicity...) The character extrapolations that they've made aren't baseless - they simply assume that Adler's actions in SCAN are her modus operandi. And if you assume that she blackmails royals and has hasty marriages on a regular basis, it sort of makes sense, that interpretation of her as a regular - and skilled - criminal. She and Holmes would be consorting on a regular basis, and if you then take into account the practically all-pervading, utterly baseless assumpion that most accept, it's not that much of a step to assume they had an affair. None of this stops me hating it. (Seriously, I have such a grudge where Irene Adler is concerned. I worry so much about Moffat and the second series of Sherlock, it's not even funny. D:)
The problem with the Rathbone films is that Rathbone himself is actually quite brilliant. It's just that Bruce's Watson makes me want to stab something rather than endure the pain of his mangling of everyone's favourite army doctor. OH MY GOD YES IAN HART! I've only seen the adaptation of Hound with Roxburgh, but I loved it to bits, despite the changes it made. (It was brilliantly done, anyway. The atmosphere of that moor! *shudders* So creepily perfect.) Hart made such a refreshing Watson, and I think that's definitely one of the benefits of the Ritchie-verse as well. Law's Watson is competent and useful (and ridiculously good-looking XD), and the extra way they've militarised him - straightened his back and starched his collar - makes him the perfect foil for RDJ's Holmes. Everything that you quoted yourself on - yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. I've been going back through the canon, and I keep seeing references to how popular Watson was with the ladies, how charming he is, his looks, his skills. (Not to mention, the original illustrations. Dayum, he was fit! XD) I think the problem with it is that, yes, everyone pales in comparison to Holmes, and so people have just over-exaggerated that. (Although, on the 'suffering fools gladly' note - I once read a quote from Basil Rathbone, where he said that Bruce's Watson humanised Holmes. And I have to admit, hateful as it is, it's true - because Holmes wouldn't spend his time with idiots, but he cares about Watson enough to keep him around. It's weirdly out of character, and not at all an excuse - but it's an interesting point nonetheless.) It's just that, though. Everyone looks stupid when compared to Holmes. Watson (and Lestrade, too - Rupert Graves' Lestrade in Sherlock is possibly the only truly competent - and hence believable - inspector I've ever seen) just suffers from that comparison, being judged as 'Holmes' sidekick' rather than as an individual person standing on his own.
...
Yeah, I'll shut up now. (Hey, you told me to essay away, so this is absolutely your fault! XD) Good discussion though!
I know what you mean. Same here. A friend of mine actually discussed at length, why it is that I'm hating the whole Holmes-Adler-"romance" so much. In the end I couldn't have cared less. The why doesn't really matter to me anyway. I hate it and that's reason enough for me.
Plus, I hate the whole Hollywood movie rule thing, that in every movie must be a romance. To quote myself again: Why do we need a female love interest for Holmes, anyway? I read all the books and never once was Holmes even remotely interested in a woman! Not even in Irene fucking Adler! Not romantically and/or sexually, anyway. Why do they always have to force such a horrible, unfitting and totally unnecessary romance on us??? Why does every healthy, single male on screen have to fall in love with some stupid woman??? Couldn’t they just have left Holmes be the loner (except for Watson) he’s always been in the books? Christ! Romance in movies is so fucking overrated! /quote
Seriously, I have such a grudge where Irene Adler is concerned. I worry so much about Moffat and the second series of Sherlock, it's not even funny. D:
Oh my God! Me, too! Moffat is a brilliant writer, but I'm still extremely worried.
Oh, I think that Basil Rathbone is a wonderful actor, no doubt. And his version of Holmes is also pretty great. But as you said, Bruce's Watson just... hurts. It physically hurts me to watch that.
Hee! If you liked The Hound of the Baskervilles you should totally watch The Case of the Silk Stocking. Watson is still played by Ian Hart and Rupert Everett isn't all that bad, either. (Plus, it has the aforementioned Michael Fassbender, which is always good. ;)
Although, on the 'suffering fools gladly' note - I once read a quote from Basil Rathbone, where he said that Bruce's Watson humanised Holmes. And I have to admit, hateful as it is, it's true - because Holmes wouldn't spend his time with idiots, but he cares about Watson enough to keep him around. It's weirdly out of character, and not at all an excuse - but it's an interesting point nonetheless.
Oh, putting it like this... Well, I'm afraid, I'll have to agree with you there. :)
(Oh, yeah! Rupert Graves is fantastic as Lestrade, isn't he?)
*laughs* I wouldn't have said it, if I hadn't meant it. Essay away. It's just too bad that we're in different time zones. (Plus, I had to spend my whole day pulling wallpapers from drywalls. Argh! Took me AGES!!) So, sorry for the late reply. And yes, good discussion! :)
I think at this stage, my biggest problem with Holmes/Adler is that it's just so overdone. It's out of character and it's a misreading and all those things - but worst of all, it's done every single time. Every adaptation of SCAN that I've seen has implied that Holmes fell in love with Adler, and the Ritchie 'verse is the worst of the lot. If it had just been done once - and done well, that'd be nice too - then I probably wouldn't have such a problem with it. But good god, as it is, I'm just so intensely sick of it. I want my epic female BAMF - such a rare breed in the Holmes verse - to be more than a love interest!
Also, AGREED. To everything you said. In the trailer for A Game of Shadows, Holmes appears to be kissing the new female lead. I might have had a minor aneurysm when I saw that. Why do you feel the need to give him a romantic subplot?! He's Sherlock Holmes, for christ's sake! The whole point is that he doesn't have romantic subplots! (Except with Watson.)
If it had just been done once - and done well, that'd be nice too - then I probably wouldn't have such a problem with it.
Right. I haven't thought of that before, but now that you're putting it like that,... Yes. I think, that's my problem, too. But I think, I have an even bigger problem with the assumption that Holmes is REALLY romantically interested in Irene Adler AT ALL. I've never understood how someone could come up with this after having read SCAN. I mean, I actually re-read it and couldn't find ANY clue that Holmes would be more than professionally interested in her. Intrigued or fascinated, maybe, because she managed to outsmart him, but romance? No hint of that at all.
Also, AGREED. To everything you said. In the trailer for A Game of Shadows, Holmes appears to be kissing the new female lead. I might have had a minor aneurysm when I saw that.
You and me both, hon. :( I guess it won't take them long to make Holmes not only Action!Holmes but also Casanova!Holmes - which is just WRONG on so many levels.
Agreed. I mean, it's even explicitly said - He. Did. Not. Love. Her. I mean, there are a whole lot of things that could be read as sort of implying that there was something there - I mean, "there was but one woman to him". *significant look* But only out of context do they seem as if they're implying a romantic or sexual attraction. When you read the rest of what Watson says, he's quite emphatic - Holmes doesn't care for the softer emotions, he doesn't love; (and yet, we find him constantly expressing emotion toward Watson); we're told time and again throughout the stories how much Holmes dislikes and distruts women; and it's quite clear that, though Adler "eclipses and predominates the whole of her sex" in Holmes' eyes, it's only because of her cunning, her skill - her mind, as a criminal and as someone who has beaten Holmes. He asks for her picture not as some romantic gesture to remember the gorgeous face of the only woman he ever fell in love with, but because she beat him, and that's a big deal. He keeps the photographs of famous criminals on his walls, does that mean he fell in love with each of them, as well? /rant
So, so wrong. Adler I can kind of handle, but random new female lead? Do you even know who Sherlock Holmes is?! *headdesk*
I mean, "there was but one woman to him". *significant look* But only out of context do they seem as if they're implying a romantic or sexual attraction.
That's exactly what I mean! I can't understand how people could create a Holmes/Adler love story out of that. They knew the context, after all! But again, obviously there can't be a movie without a romance. And that's what's pissing me off to no end. Plus, they could totally write their fucking romance for a Holmes movie with Watson! He WAS married, after all! (Twice? If I remember correctly. Though, of course, he was only REALLY married to Holmes.) There's really no need to drag Holmes into it!
He asks for her picture not as some romantic gesture to remember the gorgeous face of the only woman he ever fell in love with, but because she beat him, and that's a big deal. He keeps the photographs of famous criminals on his walls, does that mean he fell in love with each of them, as well? /rant
I can't tell you how much I agree with that!
So, so wrong. Adler I can kind of handle, but random new female lead? Do you even know who Sherlock Holmes is?! *headdesk*
Like I said: no Hollywood movie without a romance - however bad or out-of-character it may be. *weeps*
It is pretty wonderful, isn't it? Someone uploaded it all to YouTube, and I am ridiculously grateful to them for that, otherwise I'd never have seen it. I could pick a million tiny holes in it (must you include the blasted deerstalker? *sigh*), but really, it's too good to hate for little things like Holmes' hair colour or nose shape.
Oh, don't get me started on RDJ and Law. I could write an essay on the Ritchie adaptation (and kind of am). I think it's fascinating, the new interpretations of the characters, and I wonder why so many people tend to hate it when in reality their characterisations are still entirely based on extrapolations of the canon. There's the fact that RDJ's Holmes is a little too messy to be canonial, true, and the Hollywood insistence on giving him a romantic subplot makes me rage - but the vehement dislike some people hold for that movie surprises me sometimes. (Not to mention, it's what got me into Holmes in the first place, and if it makes more people read the canon and get into other adaptations, I see no reason to complain.)
Aaand, you got a minor essay anyway. Sorry about that.
Anyway, point being, you shouldn't have to apologise for your Holmes and Watson preferences in the first place, and certainly not if they're RDJ and Law. (If you preferred, say, Nigel Bruce's Watson, then I'd have a few stern words for you... XD)
Reply
I guess, I'll have to pay YouTube a visit then, and soon. :D Yes, that's awesome. And sure, that adaption wasn't perfect, but at that time still way better than some others.
Regarding the Ritchie adaption, I'm with you all the way, hon. Especially where that stupid Hollywood notion for a romance is concerned. And Irene Adler of all people! After having seen the movie I promptly posted a mini-rant on my LJ. Well, embedded in some kind of Sherlock-Holmes-movie-review, but I think, the "romance-rant" took up quite a bit of space. *g* (If you want me to, I'll link you to it, but you gotta tell me, because I'd have to un-f-lock it first. :)
*laughs* I don't mind. Essay away! ;)
No. God, no! I could never like Nigel Bruce's Watson! Argh! Seeing him in that TV adaption almost killed me! But I was so, SO happy when I watched the two adaptions with Ian Hart as Watson. Not necessarily because of the Holmses (Richard Roxburgh and Rupert Everett), not even particularly because of the cases, but because of that Watson! I think, that was the first time I've seen a Watson, who wasn't portrayed as completely stupid and absolutely incapable of anything. (And yeah, Michael Fassbender was an added bonus. *G*) Allow me to quote myself here: I’m very sure that Arthur Conan Doyle never intended for Watson to be perceived as the dense, incapable, mostly plump dumb-ass he is mostly portrayed as! Dr. John H. Watson was a physician and a military officer, who fought in a war (and as such had experience with all kinds of weapons, I imagine). He couldn’t have been that stupid! (Plus, I really don’t think Sherlock Holmes would have put up with Watson, let alone lived with him for that long a time, if he’d been truly that dense! Holmes doesn’t exactly suffer fools gladly, does he?) Watson might not have been just as smart and observant as Holmes, but who was? Everyone pales in comparison with Sherlock Holmes! And, frankly, I think Watson handled himself quite deftly.
Erm... yeah. So, you didn't get a minor essay, but you can see, that that particular topic has troubled me for quite a while now. :)
Reply
None of this stops me hating it.
(Seriously, I have such a grudge where Irene Adler is concerned. I worry so much about Moffat and the second series of Sherlock, it's not even funny. D:)
The problem with the Rathbone films is that Rathbone himself is actually quite brilliant. It's just that Bruce's Watson makes me want to stab something rather than endure the pain of his mangling of everyone's favourite army doctor.
OH MY GOD YES IAN HART! I've only seen the adaptation of Hound with Roxburgh, but I loved it to bits, despite the changes it made. (It was brilliantly done, anyway. The atmosphere of that moor! *shudders* So creepily perfect.) Hart made such a refreshing Watson, and I think that's definitely one of the benefits of the Ritchie-verse as well. Law's Watson is competent and useful (and ridiculously good-looking XD), and the extra way they've militarised him - straightened his back and starched his collar - makes him the perfect foil for RDJ's Holmes.
Everything that you quoted yourself on - yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. I've been going back through the canon, and I keep seeing references to how popular Watson was with the ladies, how charming he is, his looks, his skills. (Not to mention, the original illustrations. Dayum, he was fit! XD) I think the problem with it is that, yes, everyone pales in comparison to Holmes, and so people have just over-exaggerated that.
(Although, on the 'suffering fools gladly' note - I once read a quote from Basil Rathbone, where he said that Bruce's Watson humanised Holmes. And I have to admit, hateful as it is, it's true - because Holmes wouldn't spend his time with idiots, but he cares about Watson enough to keep him around. It's weirdly out of character, and not at all an excuse - but it's an interesting point nonetheless.)
It's just that, though. Everyone looks stupid when compared to Holmes. Watson (and Lestrade, too - Rupert Graves' Lestrade in Sherlock is possibly the only truly competent - and hence believable - inspector I've ever seen) just suffers from that comparison, being judged as 'Holmes' sidekick' rather than as an individual person standing on his own.
...
Yeah, I'll shut up now. (Hey, you told me to essay away, so this is absolutely your fault! XD) Good discussion though!
Reply
I know what you mean. Same here. A friend of mine actually discussed at length, why it is that I'm hating the whole Holmes-Adler-"romance" so much. In the end I couldn't have cared less. The why doesn't really matter to me anyway. I hate it and that's reason enough for me.
Plus, I hate the whole Hollywood movie rule thing, that in every movie must be a romance. To quote myself again: Why do we need a female love interest for Holmes, anyway? I read all the books and never once was Holmes even remotely interested in a woman! Not even in Irene fucking Adler! Not romantically and/or sexually, anyway. Why do they always have to force such a horrible, unfitting and totally unnecessary romance on us??? Why does every healthy, single male on screen have to fall in love with some stupid woman??? Couldn’t they just have left Holmes be the loner (except for Watson) he’s always been in the books? Christ! Romance in movies is so fucking overrated! /quote
Seriously, I have such a grudge where Irene Adler is concerned. I worry so much about Moffat and the second series of Sherlock, it's not even funny. D:
Oh my God! Me, too! Moffat is a brilliant writer, but I'm still extremely worried.
Oh, I think that Basil Rathbone is a wonderful actor, no doubt. And his version of Holmes is also pretty great. But as you said, Bruce's Watson just... hurts. It physically hurts me to watch that.
Hee! If you liked The Hound of the Baskervilles you should totally watch The Case of the Silk Stocking. Watson is still played by Ian Hart and Rupert Everett isn't all that bad, either. (Plus, it has the aforementioned Michael Fassbender, which is always good. ;)
Although, on the 'suffering fools gladly' note - I once read a quote from Basil Rathbone, where he said that Bruce's Watson humanised Holmes. And I have to admit, hateful as it is, it's true - because Holmes wouldn't spend his time with idiots, but he cares about Watson enough to keep him around. It's weirdly out of character, and not at all an excuse - but it's an interesting point nonetheless.
Oh, putting it like this... Well, I'm afraid, I'll have to agree with you there. :)
(Oh, yeah! Rupert Graves is fantastic as Lestrade, isn't he?)
*laughs* I wouldn't have said it, if I hadn't meant it. Essay away. It's just too bad that we're in different time zones. (Plus, I had to spend my whole day pulling wallpapers from drywalls. Argh! Took me AGES!!) So, sorry for the late reply. And yes, good discussion! :)
Reply
Also, AGREED. To everything you said. In the trailer for A Game of Shadows, Holmes appears to be kissing the new female lead. I might have had a minor aneurysm when I saw that. Why do you feel the need to give him a romantic subplot?! He's Sherlock Holmes, for christ's sake! The whole point is that he doesn't have romantic subplots! (Except with Watson.)
Reply
Right. I haven't thought of that before, but now that you're putting it like that,... Yes. I think, that's my problem, too. But I think, I have an even bigger problem with the assumption that Holmes is REALLY romantically interested in Irene Adler AT ALL. I've never understood how someone could come up with this after having read SCAN. I mean, I actually re-read it and couldn't find ANY clue that Holmes would be more than professionally interested in her. Intrigued or fascinated, maybe, because she managed to outsmart him, but romance? No hint of that at all.
Also, AGREED. To everything you said. In the trailer for A Game of Shadows, Holmes appears to be kissing the new female lead. I might have had a minor aneurysm when I saw that.
You and me both, hon. :( I guess it won't take them long to make Holmes not only Action!Holmes but also Casanova!Holmes - which is just WRONG on so many levels.
Except with Watson.
I most definitely agree. :)
Reply
/rant
So, so wrong. Adler I can kind of handle, but random new female lead? Do you even know who Sherlock Holmes is?! *headdesk*
Reply
That's exactly what I mean! I can't understand how people could create a Holmes/Adler love story out of that. They knew the context, after all! But again, obviously there can't be a movie without a romance. And that's what's pissing me off to no end. Plus, they could totally write their fucking romance for a Holmes movie with Watson! He WAS married, after all! (Twice? If I remember correctly. Though, of course, he was only REALLY married to Holmes.) There's really no need to drag Holmes into it!
He asks for her picture not as some romantic gesture to remember the gorgeous face of the only woman he ever fell in love with, but because she beat him, and that's a big deal. He keeps the photographs of famous criminals on his walls, does that mean he fell in love with each of them, as well? /rant
I can't tell you how much I agree with that!
So, so wrong. Adler I can kind of handle, but random new female lead? Do you even know who Sherlock Holmes is?! *headdesk*
Like I said: no Hollywood movie without a romance - however bad or out-of-character it may be. *weeps*
Reply
Leave a comment