But then why call him Edison?
Why not?
Or, to put it another way, they don't have to justify it. They can because they want to.
Of course they can. That's not the issue. Similarly, I can disagree with the integrity of the choice.
I don't think most people's understanding of Holmes goes that far. Holmes is simply the world's greatest detective.
This is true. The average audience member will care nothing of that, nor give any thought to the ramifications of a world where Holmes not only exists, but was born 120 years later.
If you renamed the BBC Sherlock something else, everyone would be calling it "the modern day Sherlock Holmes", so I don't see why you'd object to calling it Sherlock. I wouldn't object at all to putting Miss Marple in the modern era (Christie herself wrote her in whatever year the book was published), either.
Monk and the guy on
Psych, as well as a few others (including the doctor on
House), are all modern-day Sherlocks. Any one of those creators could have made the decision to call their character Sherlock Holmes; I think it would have been a bad decision and that it makes the characters better to be completely original.
Exactly. That makes him NOTEWORTHY, but that doesn't describe his CHARACTER. His character pushed him to become noteworthy.
Sure. But somebody's life is more than that. Edison would be a different person if he were a young man today. The character of Zorro as we know him could not exist in 2011. The same goes for Sherlock Holmes.
His pioneering techniques, I agree. However, those, for me, weren't his domineering characteristics. His ruthlessness for logic, his eye for seeing detail that others missed, his ability to add all facts together that seem to baffle us mere mortals, his desire for intellectual stimulation, and his use of drugs when he didn't get it. These are characteristics that can be easily transported.
True, and as I said, your mileage may vary. Those characteristics are intrinsic to Holmes, in my opinion, but they are not the entirety of his character.
Novelty suggests that it's not done very often. Contemporary clothing has been done for a long long time.
I still think it's the novelty factor. Many millions, or at least thousands, of people who would nod off to Shakespeare in the park will go and listen to incomprehensible dialogue if there are skyscrapers, pistols, convertibles, trendy music and popular contemporary actors in it.
But it IS what you are talking about. You say lifting a character from his or her time period changes the character. I've seen Taming of the Shrew in 1950s Italy, with mopeds and the works, you would say, to use your reasoning, those are different characters. And I'm saying it's NOT. Now, you're saying certain concepts are more mobile than others.
So, which concepts?
I've said that all along. As to which ones, it's obviously a case by case thing. And pretty much anything will require some changes. It makes more sense to do
West Side Story than to perform
Romeo and Juliet in contemporary dress. When you do Fantastic Four in the 21st century, you can't have them talking about beating the commies to the Moon, but otherwise it's not a bad fit. The Shadow would be awkward but doable. Zorro would make no sense at all. My overriding question remains the same: Why not either be true to the character or just make up an original character?
Good point - the fact that Indy seems "wrong" in a Cold War setting with Soviets, aliens and nukes can be attributed to the fact that he was based on B-movies from the 30s. Anything after 1945 just doesn't work with him. They tried, doing the "logical" thing, transporting him into the dominant type of B-movie of the 50s, namely the paranoid, alien-centric thriller, but it's not the same because the movie types don't have enough overlap. A new character would need to be invented, to fit the 50s style.
While I disagree with that particular example-- that was the appropriate era for Indy at that age, just as "His Last Bow" was for Holmes-- you're getting the gist of what I'm saying.
