stupidest remake yet...Miss Marple, the hot babe!

[Nerys Myk]

Thats because there is no Spanish colonialism in 21st Century California, but there is crime in 21st Century London and there for a need for an eccentric consulting detective who's smarter than the police.

But there's no need for someone to invent forensics or be the world's first consulting detective.

But Holmes is much more than that.

 

[Gepard]

I have to ask: what's wrong with novelty?

Nothing. It's just that some people resist change reflexively, like a cough.

 

[captcalhoun]

what makes Holmes and what made Sherlock work for me, was the bit in "A Study in Pink" when he looks at the body of the woman and does all that deductive work and puts it altogether that she's having an affair, she came from Cardiff and she'd been using an umbrella (that's missing) and Lestrade and Watson are completely befuddled at how he figured it all out.

he used his brain and saw things that were obvious to him, yet they CLEARLY missed.

But how dare they update Watson to have him wounded in Afghanistan!

Oh wait . . . .

^ I did think that was very clever.

clear case of 'the more things change, the more they stay the same...'

 

[RJDiogenes]

So?

He's still quite identifiably Sherlock Holmes. If you changed the names, everybody would say it's clearly Sherlock Holmes.

And I really don't get this contention that being the first is somehow crucial to Holmes' character. I can't recall a single story where "I'm the first consulting detective and forensics specialist" came up; he's simply the best, in any era, and that's why he's important.

It came up a lot. The things he did were practically Science Fiction at the time; this contemporary Holmes showed no sign of being innovative at all.

I have to ask: what's wrong with novelty? There have already been five zillion gaslit Holmes adaptations (and there will doubtless be many more), so why not do something different and set Holmes in the world of cell phones and text messaging--just for the fun of it?

There's nothing wrong with novelty at all. I like novelty. But the Holmes re-imagining is less novelty than laziness. Remember that this Thread is actually about Miss Marple, and that we live in an age of other numerous remakes that are either useless or completely without artistic integrity. As a member of that group, the new Holmes may be the least offensive in quality, although certainly the most anachronistic so far.

But Holmes is much more than that.

More, but not less. Since this new Holmes lives in a world seemingly identical to our own, it makes me wonder who took his place.

Nothing. It's just that some people resist change reflexively, like a cough.

That's true. I wish people were more open to creativity. Then we wouldn't have these remakes at all.

 

[Greg Cox]

we live in an age of other numerous remakes that are either useless or completely without artistic integrity.

But this is show biz we're talking about.

"Artistic integrity" should never get in the way of a fun story.

 

[Professor Zoom]

But Holmes is much more than that.

More, but not less. Since this new Holmes lives in a world seemingly identical to our own, it makes me wonder who took his place.

Dupin.

 

[beamMe]

I suppose the litmus test would be, if you change the name of the character and people say "That's a rip-off of Sherlock Holmes" then yes it would make it less brilliant. If however, you change the name and people don't think its a rip-off you have successfully created a new character.

Which worked quite well with the character Jessica Fletcher - she is the American Miss Marple.

 

[AJBryant]

Oh, dear god.

Next up: Hercule Poirot, hunk.

Murder on the bullet train express

"We're all locked in this train. We'll be arriving at our destination in exactly 32 minutes, and we have to solve the crime before then..."

Good grief, this "reboot" makes me twitch.

 

[RJDiogenes]

we live in an age of other numerous remakes that are either useless or completely without artistic integrity.

But this is show biz we're talking about.

Exactly.

"Artistic integrity" should never get in the way of a fun story.

Sure it should, unless you're doing a straight-up parody or satire. I don't think car-keying classic characters or concepts is very fun.

But Holmes is much more than that.

More, but not less. Since this new Holmes lives in a world seemingly identical to our own, it makes me wonder who took his place.

Dupin.

Very likely. It would be interesting if they worked some references in to Basil Rathbone's performance in Auguste Dupin and the Woman in Green or something.

 

[Professor Zoom]

we live in an age of other numerous remakes that are either useless or completely without artistic integrity.

But this is show biz we're talking about.

Exactly.

Sure it should, unless you're doing a straight-up parody or satire. I don't think car-keying classic characters or concepts is very fun.

More, but not less. Since this new Holmes lives in a world seemingly identical to our own, it makes me wonder who took his place.

Dupin.

Very likely. It would be interesting if they worked some references in to Basil Rathbone's performance in Auguste Dupin and the Woman in Green or something.

Or him fighting Nazi's.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Maybe Miss Marple can be tapped for Homeland Security.

 

[Greg Cox]

we live in an age of other numerous remakes that are either useless or completely without artistic integrity.

But this is show biz we're talking about.

Exactly.

Sure it should, unless you're doing a straight-up parody or satire. I don't think car-keying classic characters or concepts is very fun.

.

I don't know. I think when people start getting worked up about "integrity" and "respecting" the material, they forget that that this stuff is supposed to be fun and entertaining, not treated like sacred cows.

"Classic" or not, it's all grist for the mill.

Honestly, whether it's Sherlock Holmes, Miss Marple, Abraham Lincoln, or Wonder Woman, it does sometimes seem like the internet is worried about everything except whether the latest new version is, you know, any fun or not.

If it's entertaining, it works. At least as far as I concerned.

 

[J.T.B.]

And I really don't get this contention that being the first is somehow crucial to Holmes' character. I can't recall a single story where "I'm the first consulting detective and forensics specialist" came up; he's simply the best, in any era, and that's why he's important.

A Study in Scarlet:

[Holmes says:] "Well, I have a trade of my own. I suppose I am the only one in the world. I'm a consulting detective, if you can understand what that is. Here in London we have lots of Government detectives and lots of private ones. When these fellows are at fault they come to me, and I manage to put them on the right scent. They lay all the evidence before me, and I am generally able, by the help of my knowledge of the history of crime, to set them straight."​

The Sign of the Four:

[Holmes says:] "I crave for mental exaltation. That is why I have chosen my own particular profession,--or rather created it, for I am the only one in the world." "The only unofficial detective?" I said, raising my eyebrows. "The only unofficial consulting detective," he answered. "I am the last and highest court of appeal in detection. When Gregson or Lestrade or Athelney Jones are out of their depths--which, by the way, is their normal state--the matter is laid before me. I examine the data, as an expert, and pronounce a specialist's opinion."​

That set Holmes apart as not just a detective, but a detective for other detectives. He had taken forensic study to a higher level than anyone in the country, or the continent, or the world as far as we know, and becomes, as a result, a somewhat well-known public figure. That would be rather harder to establish for a character today with the widespread application of science to criminal investigation.

Is that the essential thing about the character? No, but it is a defining attribute. Like any enduring literary creation, the time and setting are part of the author's vision and define the character as much as plot does. The further you stray from the author's vision, the more dilute and ordinary the character becomes. It can still be OK, but it's no longer something original and special. If you grew up loving the character as written, as I did with Holmes, a great change in setting or characterization will ring hollow, but for the wide audience the difference will never even be noted.

--Justin

 

[RJDiogenes]

^^ Well said.

Or him fighting Nazi's.

Alternatively, Dupin could be a guest star in Season Two. Along with Nick Charles.

I don't know. I think when people start getting worked up about "integrity" and "respecting" the material, they forget that that this stuff is supposed to be fun and entertaining, not treated like sacred cows.

"Classic" or not, it's all grist for the mill.

Honestly, whether it's Sherlock Holmes, Miss Marple, Abraham Lincoln, or Wonder Woman, it does sometimes seem like the internet is worried about everything except whether the latest new version is, you know, any fun or not.

If it's entertaining, it works. At least as far as I concerned.

So you would be okay with them bringing back Peanuts by Robert Crumb, or doing a Dawn Of The Dead TV series as a sitcom shot on videotape?

 

[Gov Kodos]

And I really don't get this contention that being the first is somehow crucial to Holmes' character. I can't recall a single story where "I'm the first consulting detective and forensics specialist" came up; he's simply the best, in any era, and that's why he's important.

A Study in Scarlet:

[Holmes says:] "Well, I have a trade of my own. I suppose I am the only one in the world. I'm a consulting detective, if you can understand what that is. Here in London we have lots of Government detectives and lots of private ones. When these fellows are at fault they come to me, and I manage to put them on the right scent. They lay all the evidence before me, and I am generally able, by the help of my knowledge of the history of crime, to set them straight."​

The Sign of the Four:

[Holmes says:] "I crave for mental exaltation. That is why I have chosen my own particular profession,--or rather created it, for I am the only one in the world." "The only unofficial detective?" I said, raising my eyebrows. "The only unofficial consulting detective," he answered. "I am the last and highest court of appeal in detection. When Gregson or Lestrade or Athelney Jones are out of their depths--which, by the way, is their normal state--the matter is laid before me. I examine the data, as an expert, and pronounce a specialist's opinion."​

That set Holmes apart as not just a detective, but a detective for other detectives. He had taken forensic study to a higher level than anyone in the country, or the continent, or the world as far as we know, and becomes, as a result, a somewhat well-known public figure. That would be rather harder to establish for a character today with the widespread application of science to criminal investigation.

Is that the essential thing about the character? No, but it is a defining attribute. Like any enduring literary creation, the time and setting are part of the author's vision and define the character as much as plot does. The further you stray from the author's vision, the more dilute and ordinary the character becomes. It can still be OK, but it's no longer something original and special. If you grew up loving the character as written, as I did with Holmes, a great change in setting or characterization will ring hollow, but for the wide audience the difference will never even be noted.

--Justin

This relation of Holmes to the groundbreaking use of the sciences in criminal detection makes putting Holmes in the present little more than, say, Grissome in CSI. However, you could put the character in the past, as was done more or less in 'The Name of the Rose' where it is not only the character's logic which sets him apart put his use of evidence and physical sciences.

 

[Greg Cox]

^^ Well said.

Or him fighting Nazi's.

Alternatively, Dupin could be a guest star in Season Two. Along with Nick Charles.

I don't know. I think when people start getting worked up about "integrity" and "respecting" the material, they forget that that this stuff is supposed to be fun and entertaining, not treated like sacred cows.

"Classic" or not, it's all grist for the mill.

Honestly, whether it's Sherlock Holmes, Miss Marple, Abraham Lincoln, or Wonder Woman, it does sometimes seem like the internet is worried about everything except whether the latest new version is, you know, any fun or not.

If it's entertaining, it works. At least as far as I concerned.

So you would be okay with them bringing back Peanuts by Robert Crumb, or doing a Dawn Of The Dead TV series as a sitcom shot on videotape?

Once the stuff is in public domain, why not?

It's not like the traditional versions go away. Some experiments are doomed to be failures, but that's the way it goes. To my mind, it's better than keeping old characters and stories frozen in amber forever in order to keep them "pure" or whatever.

Let a thousand flowers bloom, etc.

 

[Professor Zoom]

I don't know. I think when people start getting worked up about "integrity" and "respecting" the material, they forget that that this stuff is supposed to be fun and entertaining, not treated like sacred cows.

"Classic" or not, it's all grist for the mill.

Honestly, whether it's Sherlock Holmes, Miss Marple, Abraham Lincoln, or Wonder Woman, it does sometimes seem like the internet is worried about everything except whether the latest new version is, you know, any fun or not.

If it's entertaining, it works. At least as far as I concerned.

So you would be okay with them bringing back Peanuts by Robert Crumb, or doing a Dawn Of The Dead TV series as a sitcom shot on videotape?

First, you might want to fix your quote tags, I didn't say the above. Greg did.

And second, Peanuts by Robert Crumb? Yes. HELL yes. I would love it. I'm curious what an artist like Crumb would do. Would it be for everyone? No. Would it be interesting? Yes.

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

And second, Peanuts by Robert Crumb? Yes. HELL yes. I would love it. I'm curious what an artist like Crumb would do. Would it be for everyone? No. Would it be interesting? Yes.

Actually, apart from Robert Crumb, I can only think of two other artists who I think would be worthy of using the Peanuts characters.

 

[Professor Zoom]

And second, Peanuts by Robert Crumb? Yes. HELL yes. I would love it. I'm curious what an artist like Crumb would do. Would it be for everyone? No. Would it be interesting? Yes.

Actually, apart from Robert Crumb, I can only think of two other artists who I think would be worthy of using the Peanuts characters.

Well, if it were to be extended in a real way (Crumb would be certainly a new vision, BRING IT). But, I could see Bill Watterson doing a really wonderful continuation very much in the spirit and possibly Berke Breathed. Those two would do a loyal interpretation.

But, bring on Crumb!

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

Well, if it were to be extended in a real way (Crumb would be certainly a new vision, BRING IT). But, I could see Bill Watterson doing a really wonderful continuation very much in the spirit and possibly Berke Breathed. Those two would do a loyal interpretation.

I had Bill Watterson and Jaime Hernandez on my list.