Friends have trailers?
SHERLOCK HOLMES trailer now online!
- Thread starter JacksonArcher
- Start date
I'm not impressed by the trailer, either. Downey looked like he was playing Tony Stark with an English accent.
I agree with the sentiment that some would be more open to the film if it didn't come with a pre-conceived notion of an iconic character.
I agree with the sentiment that some would be more open to the film if it didn't come with a pre-conceived notion of an iconic character.
Sometimes. Or sometimes they have RVs instead. I once had a friend who had a houseboat.
I liked what I saw.
I can't say I buy it has The Sherlock Holmes but I buy it as a nuSherlock Holmes. The character twisted and reimagined if you will.
I can't say I buy it has The Sherlock Holmes but I buy it as a nuSherlock Holmes. The character twisted and reimagined if you will.
Looks fantastic, but watching it I couldn't help but get a "House" vibe. Which is odd since House is more or less inspired by Holmes. 
And, hey, RDJ should be able to do the scenes with Holmes shooting lines of cocaine pretty well.
And, hey, RDJ should be able to do the scenes with Holmes shooting lines of cocaine pretty well.
I once had a friend who had a houseboat.
Was it T-Pain?
Sometimes. Or sometimes they have RVs instead. I once had a friend who had a houseboat.
Thank you for that!Obviously people can make first impressions, I know that. But I also know that I don't necessarily choose my friends; I prefer to make them. It happens naturally and gradually...and it isn't the best analogy to deciding I don't want to watch a movie.
I once had a friend who had a houseboat.
Was it T-Pain?
No, it was the Huggermugger II. I have no idea what you just said.
I once had a friend who had a houseboat.
Was it T-Pain?
No, it was the Huggermugger II. I have no idea what you just said.
You don't want to know.
Fine, then allow me to elaborate on his behalf.
This trailer makes me think of this film as "Wild Wild West" part II. I suppose you'll take that differently depending on what you thought of that movie, but I'm just getting the same vibe.
I don't mind action, but they seem to be more the explosions and fireball type of action. I'm a bit worried that it will be less "Holmes in action" kind of action and more "James Bond blows up the whole block" kind of action.
And before you come back and say "the fireball was just one shot," let me explain that it was simply a representative moment of the whole thing. My real problem is that it looks like an Indiana Jones movie.
Look, I love Indiana Jones movies, but is Sherlock Holmes supposed to be like Indiana Jones? I mean, if I'm wrong, TELL me that. Tell me that Jones was based on Holmes originally and I'll shut up. That's just not the impression I've always gotten. Maybe I'm wrong about the character. If he's SUPPOSED to be Dr. House mixed with Dr. Jones then yes, they did it right. Good for them.
Exactly. Instead of screwing up existing concepts by re-imagining them for the lowest common denominator, they should create something new.
Well, that's pretty much what makes them iconic.
Holmes took his cocaine intravenously. A seven per-cent solution.And, hey, RDJ should be able to do the scenes with Holmes shooting lines of cocaine pretty well.
For once, you posted what I wanted to say.
I'm not all that concerned about "accuracy," so long as it's a good movie.
As far as I'm concerned, the only truly authentic Sherlock Holmes is the one in the stories. Everything else is just an imitation. So long as these imitations succeed on their own terms, they're fine by me.
My one concern has already been mentioned. I grew up reading facsimile editions that included the original Sidney Paget illustrations, so I have a pretty firm conception of what Holmes looks like--and in my mind, he doesn't look much like Robert Downey Jr. That may be problematic.
But this brings us back to the question of "accuracy". I read once that Doyle was not all that pleased with Paget's version of Holmes--he was more handsome than Doyle himself had imagined. So who knows what the "real" Sherlock Holmes looks like?
I don't see any similarity. Yes, it's more in a conventional action-movie vein than one would expect of a Holmes movie, but it's nowhere near the level of goofiness and inanity of that particular film.
Most of the Basil Rathbone movies brought Holmes and Watson forward into the 1940s and portrayed them taking on Nazis and the like. They also portrayed Watson as an elderly, bumbling moron who had nothing whatsoever in common with the strong, stalwart, capable Watson in the stories and books. These films were profoundly unfaithful to the original, yet they defined Holmes and Watson for several generations of movie and TV audiences.
So yes, this film may be a revisionist take on Holmes, but it's very, very far from being the first or the most extreme revisionist take. If anything, it's more faithful than the Rathbone/Bruce films that were considered "definitive" for decades.
And I've seen other films that screwed up Holmes pretty badly. Consider Sherlock Holmes in New York, with Roger Moore as Holmes. I mean, come on. Roger Moore. And his Holmes was pretty much the same suave, wisecracking figure as his James Bond, completely and utterly unlike Doyle's character.
ooh la la, helllooooo rachel mcadams!
Holmes took his cocaine intravenously. A seven per-cent solution.And, hey, RDJ should be able to do the scenes with Holmes shooting lines of cocaine pretty well.
I know.
It was a joke, dear.
His argument, if you can call it that, is too weak to counter with anything of substance.
He judges a whole movie based on the trailer. Is that how he chooses his books? His friends?
I'm sorry, but his position was devoid of anything intelligent to "counter" with anything but aor personal attacks. Rules say that I can't attack the poster just the post, so I went with the
People change their opinions all the time. I know S. Gomez decently well. I know he's well-versed in literature and has probably read most if not all existing Sherlock Holmes reading material that there is. If he doesn't like something based on a trailer -- which can be at times highly indicative of the final result -- then I am going to give him the benefit of the doubt.
You may give him that... doesn't mean I have to.
First impressions... but you knew that. But just like a first impression doesn't make a friend, neither does a trailer make a movie.
A trailer is meant to market a film. Targeted and a specific demo in order to bring in the maximum amount of money in the shortest amount of time. Problem is that adds like that very rarely hit the mark with individuals of the type who dwell in fora like here. We are not the "masses", we are not the "target demo" for 99.9% of all movie marketing out there. That is why I gave up on trailers as an add to represent what a film is and treat them as "3 min short films" and judge them on their own right, separate of the film itself.
WWW was a wasted opportunity, mostly because it was produced by a man with a spider fetish. There is nothing wrong with the "steampunk" sub genera in it's own right and when dealt with properly.
I agree that that perticular type of action is poorly, and overly used in "action" films today. I think that your distinction between the two is a fair point to make. However, one must remember that the masses are like a school of fish... They are attracted by bright, flashey things. So if the film has any type of explosion in it it will feature promently in the trailer, even if not in the film itself.
Another fair point, but as has been mentiond there is no "true Holmes" but what was writen in the books. Nearly every acted performance of Holmes has taken liberties, from the type of pipe, the use of the deerstalker cap, ect. So if this version once again takes liberties, I won't hold that against it.
New means risk. Risk is not a popular thing in the film making industry anymore. It's about money and fear. Shame really.
Indeed.
You nailed it with that post of yours now Holdfast.
