I can’t wait to see a hansom go over a cliff and explode.
I’m okay if the action is choreographed and filmed appropriately for the period. I’m not sure how one would do that as I’m not a film director, but I’m sure it does not involve giant steam-driven mechanical spiders.
What’s the problem? These things have always been part of the Sherlock mythos. Holmes and Watson have always traded barbs. Holmes has frequently insulted Watson’s inelligence, and Watson has frequently complained about Holmes’ slovenly habits. Holmes has always been ready for fisticuffs. Most notably his skill at the baritsu fighting style allowed him to survive his encounter with Moriarty. As for being a ladies man, he likes women that stimulate him intellectually.
I’ve seen the teen Sherlock and the mouse Sherlock, both of which were great, but not the gay Sherlock - which version was that?
I was tempted to think this was an April Fools but the date on the article is a day early for that. Could be interesting though. Jude Law seems a bit skinny for my mental picture of Watson though.
I’m actually surprised that all these versions of Sherlock keep getting made given that he’s not yet in public domain.
I agree. When I actually got around to reading the stories, I actually read Holmes’ dialog in his voice.
As for the character changes, I could certainly see Holmes fighting and engaging in exciting chases, but as a ladies man? It just doesn’t seem right. I mean he retired to the life of a bachelor bee-keeper. That is not the action of a womanizer.
That would be hilarious!
and on preview…
You’re right there. I have no complaints about this.
So who’s playing Mrs. Hudson? Kate?
I’m not convinced the movie portrays him as a “ladies’ man.” The article does use the phrase, but in support the only detail it mentions is that Holmes has a romantic interest in the movie. That hardly makes him a ladies’ man.
Nor does being left naked cuffed to a bed imply ladiesmanship. It could be read quite the opposite way in fact. Assuming a lady was even involved.
I’ll agree with many other posters that Holmes as an action hero is fine: He’s pretty physically active in the original stories, even, and it makes sense to play that up further for the screen. But if you’re portraying your main character as a ladies’ man (or even as a lady’s man, singular), then the character you’re portraying is not Sherlock Holmes.
There was a minor plot point in one movie, I think it was The Private Life Of Sherlock Holmes, a woman offered to pay Holmes a substantial fee (a Stradivarius violin) if he would father a baby for her. He backed out of the deal by claiming to be gay. I don’t think he actually meant it, though, he just didn’t want the deal.
In the same movie, Holmes speaks about his fiancee, who died shortly before the wedding. So it is possible to have Sherlock involved romantically, while still remaining Sherlock.
Holmes always had an action element – chasing the bad guys through London in THE SIGN OF FOUR, going after the HOUND OF THE BASKERVILLES, etc. So, I think it will depend on what they do and how they do it.
The iconic Holmes for me is not Jeremy Britt, who did a fine job, but Basil Rathbone… whom I once saw in person.
Yes, you’re right, that was Private Life…. The woman was a Russian ballerina.
It explains the coke. The Holmes in the stories just shot up and hung out at home, shooting the walls. Feh. Junkies could do that, if it occurred to them and their selfmeds were wearing off and they could keep a thought together long enough to…oh, fuck it! Some thing else showed up on TV.
Yes, the police were disappointed when their docile junkies were outnumbered by psycho cokeheads.
Holmes is in the public domain in the US, according to this link.
I’m perfectly fine with an action Holmes. The public domain allows creative people to use characters and stories created by others in new ways. How is this any more ridiculous than Holmes battling Nazis? It’s not holy writ. Hell, Hamlet has been done as a porn movie and as an episode of Gilligan’s Island. Is an ass-kicking Holmes anywhere near that extreme?
“Past screen adaptations of Holmes stories “just never had the money to do it right,” Downey said.”
Come on.
I’m pretty sure he was being sarcastic. This is, after all, Robert Downey Junior.
Next we’ll hear that he had a controversial operation on his larynx to give him a permanent English accent. 
Hey, why not?
It could be cool.
After growing up watching Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce Sherlock Holmes movies (plus watching the 1980s version with the nerdy guy on MPT), it will be boss to have a non-nerdy Sherlock Holmes detective hero dude.
It’s nothing new for the H’wood adaptation of books to be different from the original anyhow.
True, but it seems he still enjoys a trademark… which I’m guessing would apply to any non-direct adaptions.
Wow, that is one seriously bogus claim. The copyrights expired in 2000, as far as I know all the books were written before 1922 so what exactly are they claiming? Trademark on the deerstalker hat and pipe? Has anyone challenged them on this claim? Because if the character was described in a book that is out of copyright, anyone can produce new works based on that character. Otherwise the heirs of Prof Dodgson could claim Alice is their property, or someone could dig up an heir of Shakespere to assert that every production of Romeo and Juliet owes them money.
Jeremy Brett owns the role so utterly and completely I kinda feel like it takes the pressure off people playing newer versions of the character. Nobody has a chance in hell of coming anywhere near him in terms of bringing to life the Sherlock Holmes of the original texts, so why not try a radically different angle? I’m looking forward to this one.