The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes
discussion
What is better: Book or movie(the 1 with Robert Downey Jr.)?
date
newest »
newest »
Cannot believe you are even trying to compare the two!!! haha (not in a mean way, alot of people do) But I read the books when I was 8 years old and I am a BIT obsessed, OKAY I AM A S-H-E-R-L-O-C-K-I-A-N! I mean... I was very very mad at guy ritchie for this movie... First off Sherlock Holmes is portrayed as a bi-sexual in the books... and they didn't do too well at that (obviously) and then it has almost NOTHING to do with the books... except for throwing a couple quotes in here and there. he even said "elementary, my dear watson." and that isn't even from the books... he says "elementary" once in the crooked man, but only once. They took that quote out of the "Adventures of Sherlock Holmes" from the 1970's with Jeremy Brett... I know that they must've read the books, and it was an amazing movie but I consider it a action movie with sherlock holmes in it; not a sherlock holmes movie. IT IS AN AMAZING MYSTERY WHICH I LOOOOOOOVE! (I own and have the movie memorized) But being the sherlockian I am... I still hate all of them for it XD haha I know that so many people have already followed the books (such as GRANDA, and [whatever Basil Rathborne is in]) and someone needs to change it... but this was too many changes. I want to see someone read those book 100 million times and then see this movie... It was painfull for a 10 year old so devoted to these... hahhahhahahaha! But I still love this movie. READ THE BOOKS!!! I promise it is better!
Trike wrote: "Sandesh wrote: "Guy Ritchie has done a hell of a job with the movie, but its still a guy ritchie movie,.....the character & personality of Sherlock homes is nowhere near what sir Arthur Conan Doyle..."I love you man! hahahhahaha totally agree!
Jasmine wrote: "For those who have seen the Sherlock Holmes movies (the first OR A Game of Shadows) what do u like better,the books or the movies? I absolutely LOVE Robert Downey Jr. as Holmes because he has the p..."Ewww. Never. Never. Never. Those movies crushed me... I have been devoted to these books since I was 8... I love Jeremy Brett alllllot more. He is the perfect Sherlock Holmes, even Benedict Cumberbatch is better. But JB is the MASTER! (R.I.P)
Sarah wrote: "Cannot believe you are even trying to compare the two!!! haha (not in a mean way, alot of people do) But I read the books when I was 8 years old and I am a BIT obsessed, OKAY I AM A S-H-E-R-L-O-C-K..."totally agree!
When looking at the books or Guy Ritchie, I have to say the books. In Guy Ritchie's movies you wonder why the two are even friends all they do is fight. That and just about everything is taken out of context.
Wlatin wrote: "I liked the Robert Downey movie a lot ,but it has nothing to do with the Conan Doyle character, except that they both have the same name. Benedict Cumberbatch as Sherlock Holmes in the BBC's Sherlo..."I like how you word it.
Anubhuti wrote: "Wlatin wrote: "I liked the Robert Downey movie a lot ,but it has nothing to do with the Conan Doyle character, except that they both have the same name. Benedict Cumberbatch as Sherlock Holmes in t..."The BBC Sherlock is BRILLIANT! Its only a 20 dollar digital buy at Amazon. I highly recommend it!
book tho i loved the movie it cant compare to the genius books!!!!!!!!!
How can anyone ask this question with a straight face?How can some of the frankly, incredible replies elicited--even be given voice--by anyone over the age of 13?
The way I see it: the cowardly producers and sleazy executives behind this execrable 'franchise project' out to be hung by the neck from the nearest gibbet until dead; the writers responsible out to be dunked upside down in a burning latrine; the 'actors' (using that term loosely) ought be bathed by vats of fmaming oil; and hell, no self-respecting member of our western civilization even ought to attend on such a disgrace. Certainly no lover of literature or fan of the writing of Sir Conan Doyle' should be anything but embarrassed and ashamed at the experience.
Holmes and Watson are not muscular, dashing, smooth-faced, acrobatic superheroes with six-pack abs and twirling six-shooters from their fingers, swinging through the air. They do not fight dinosaurs or black magic or gallivant all over the globe or make love to sultry femme fatales. The Downey films are in grotesque bad taste and poor judgment and do a disservice to the whole tradition of Holmes in English literature.
This may be odd, but I made the argument that the movie In the Heat of the Night was really a Sherlock Holmes story.Do I have a valid argument here, or not?
http://shermandemetrius.blogspot.com/
Feliks wrote: "How can anyone ask this question with a straight face?How can some of the frankly, incredible replies elicited--even be given voice--by anyone over the age of 13?
The way I see it: the cowardly producers and sleazy executives behind this execrable 'franchise project' out to be hung by the neck from the nearest gibbet until dead; the writers responsible out to be dunked upside down in a burning latrine; the 'actors' (using that term loosely) ought be bathed by vats of fmaming oil; and hell, no self-respecting member of our western civilization even ought to attend on such a disgrace. Certainly no lover of literature or fan of the writing of Sir Conan Doyle' should be anything but embarrassed and ashamed at the experience.
Holmes and Watson are not muscular, dashing, smooth-faced, acrobatic superheroes with six-pack abs and twirling six-shooters from their fingers, swinging through the air. They do not fight dinosaurs or black magic or gallivant all over the globe or make love to sultry femme fatales. The Downey films are in grotesque bad taste and poor judgment and do a disservice to the whole tradition of Holmes in English literature. "
This is so... weird and wrong.
In the stories, Holmes IS muscular and acrobatic. He's a lithe pugilist with a brutal reputation. You'd know that if you'd read the books. If instead you've only seen the various effeminate poppinjay portrayals of him over the years, I can see how this true-to-the-tales rendition of Holmes might be a shock to one's system.
Every previous incarnation has portrayed Holmes as an uppercrust gentleman who happens to be a smart chap. In the originals he is a drug-addicted misanthrope who lives like a slob. Watson is almost always shown as a bumbling idiot with occasional insights, whereas in the stories he's calm, capable and a crack shot. He's strongly built with a thick neck. Furthermore, Watson is a freaking GENIUS. He doesn't have Holmes' crazy brilliance, but he is an intellectual, a skilled surgeon and a trained killer who happens to be a decorated war hero.
Those are all descriptions straight out of the text. How does any of that square with the horrid-to-truly-shitty portrayals of Holmes and Watson we've seen over the years?
The one thing where the Guy Ritchie movies deviate from the stories is that Holmes always looks a little bit scruffy, while Doyle described him as able to clean up nicely and blend in with the gentry. But that's such a minor deviation it's hardly worth mentioning. Certainly when you compare it to the absurd liberties taken with the character by previous films and TV series.
The other thing to keep in mind is that these are not holy texts handed down from the mount by an archangel and inscribed on golden tablets. It's pulp fiction and Doyle didn't even like Holmes that much. He even tried to kill him off in order to be rid of him, but public outcry forced him to bring the guy back. Doyle was so lackadaisical about the tales that he didn't even bother keeping good continuity, which why things like Watson's wandering war wound and that he's sometimes called John and sometimes James happened: Doyle didn't care.
The movie is good indeed except for the character has a profile quite the contrary to Mr.Holmes. For example, his relationship with Ms.Adler. the movie is good in its own way....but quite different from Holmes's actual character...
light wrote: "The movie is good indeed except for the character has a profile quite the contrary to Mr.Holmes. For example, his relationship with Ms.Adler. the movie is good in its own way....but quite different from Holmes's actual character... "No it's not. It really isn't. These are the truest versions of Holmes ever filmed.
MizziQ wrote: "Definitely the book. But I was pretty impressed with the movies. The books have a classic, more rich feeling to them but I do think the movies were done very creatively and I love both!"i do agree.the book is better then movie.and well i think the movie is the worse Holmes i ever seen i think Jeremy Bertt is the best Holmes and near to the character that Doyle created.
I liked the movie but I love the books! I hated when they changed the book version. For example what happens to Mary, Mrs. Hudson, and Irene Adler. I'd have preferred that would maintain the original story
Trike, Sarah...WORD. I completely agree.For what it's worth, my teenage daughter will defend the movie with her very life, and she takes film much more seriously than I do...but I just don't see it here. The BOOK. THE BOOK!!!
I have always enjoyed the books and think them a bit more well-done than the movie, although I enojyed the movie immensely. The reparte and friendship between Holmes and Watson was so entertaining. And I did appreciate the portrayal of Watson as someone other than a bumbling idiot, as so many TV or film adaptations proclaim him to be. I will always go to the books for a dose of Sherlock Holmes, but consider the movie as a companion. :)
Katelyn wrote: "The book. The movie was an adaptation of it to fit Robert Downey's typical character... It was uncreative and uninspired."Wow. How anyone can watch those movies, with their masterful use of cinema to engagingly tell the story, and call them "uncreative and uninspired" is beyond me.
There has never been a more accurate, true-to-the-books portrayal of Holmes and Watson ever made. And only the BBC's series has used cinema nearly as creatively, but that's been largely confined to their representation of texting.
I adore both the books and BBC's version of Sherlock. It has amazing acting, witty writing, and brilliant cinematography. Haven't seen the Robert Downey Jr. movie but I can imagine he's awesome too.
Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows, the second movie with Robert Downey Jr, is good, but I don't think as good as the first. However, Downey is a superb Sherlock, abet not in the traditional mode. Sherlock is like ice cream--everybody has their favorite flavor. I find I enjoy the movies and tv series more if I don't compare them to each other.
Michael wrote: "However, Downey is a superb Sherlock, abet not in the traditional mode."It seems to me that the "traditional mode" people speak of is the namby-pamby drawing room version of Holmes with the attendant bumbling (and often dim-witted) Watson struggling to keep up with him. Those were inaccurate interpretations of the characters by previous filmmakers who preferred Agatha Christie over Doyle.
I don't consider Downey Jr.'s Holmes movies to be 'Sherlock Holmes' movies. They are way too... Hollywood and there's too much fighting which is boring. In fact I didn't even finish it/them because it/they were so uninteresting. And I hated the character of "Holmes", he was never a joke in the books like he is in the movies.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
Totally agree. Robert Downey is a man's man. Great to watch but he's not Sherlock.