Stephen Fry to join 'Holmes' sequel

[Gaith]

Actually, I'd say that the Guy Ritchie movie payed closer attention to the original books than most other movie versions... The movie was great at capturing the spirit of ACD's characters

Not if its Watson gratuitously punches Holmes in the face, it wasn't.

 

[Christopher]

Of course the Ritchie film took liberties, but no more so than any prior Holmes adaptation, and less so than many. It just took different liberties, and was faithful about different things.

 

[DonIago]

Granted my exposure to SH media has been rather limited, but I have to say I expected the '09 movie to be far less entertaining and thoughtful than it was (i.e. I went to see it somewhat begrudgingly, IIRC). Rather looking forward to the sequel.

 

[Owain Taggart]

Yeah, the characterization was mostly right. I just didn't like the fact that they over-emphasized his fighting skills. They were such a minor point in the stories. Sure, he has undeniable skills in martial arts, but it's a bit like saying someone's a race car driver when they just drive casually.

 

[Christopher]

^Well, given that it was a big-budget tentpole motion picture, what else could anyone have expected? It was axiomatic that such an adaptation would play up the action. The question is, did they do so in a way that was validly grounded in the original texts? And the answer is yes. The foundations are there; only the emphasis is shifted.

 

[Gaith]

Of course the Ritchie film took liberties, but no more so than any prior Holmes adaptation

From all I've heard about the Jeremy Brett TV series, that assertion is empirically false unless you meant film adaptations, and frankly, there have been so many of those that I'd still highly doubt it, if for no other reason than this.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Of course the Ritchie film took liberties, but no more so than any prior Holmes adaptation

From all I've heard about the Jeremy Brett TV series, that assertion is empirically false unless you meant film adaptations, and frankly, there have been so many of those that I'd still highly doubt it, if for no other reason than this.

Since the wiki articles mention that the Brett series and the Rathbone Hound of the Baskervilles took liberties, I not sure what they proved.

The series possibly presents the most faithful screen adaptations of many of the Holmes stories, although liberties were taken with some plotlines and characters, particularly later in the run during the 1990s episodes. A big change was Holmes quitting his cocaine habit in the episode "The Devil's Foot," which was done at the approval of Conan Doyle's granddaughter when it was discovered that the series had a considerable child audience.

Holmes eventually makes an appearance, having been hiding in the vicinity for some time making his own enquiries. An effective scene, not in the original book, occurs when Holmes, Watson and Sir Henry attend a seance held by Mrs. Mortimer (Beryl Mercer). In a trance, she asks, "What happened that night on the moor, Sir Charles?" The only reply is a lone howl, possibly from a hound.

Unlike the original novel, the villain's fate is unknown in the film. Holmes does say ominously, "He won't get very far. I've posted constables along the roads and the only other way is across the Grimpen Mire."

 

[Gaith]

All relatively minor differences compared to Watson gratuitously punching Holmes in the face.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Are they? How about Watson being shown a doddering bumbling fool and comic relief? Not quite in keeping with Doyle.

 

[Christopher]

The Brett series took plenty of liberties, such as adapting the stories out of order, combining some stories into single episodes (for instance combining "The Mazarin Stone" with "The Three Garridebs"), expanding other stories with new material, writing Moriarty into "The Red Headed League," writing Lestrade into "The Creeping Man," writing Mycroft into "The Golden Pince-Nez" in place of Watson and "The Mazarin Stone" in place of Holmes, etc. etc. Heck, just having Mycroft take an active role in an investigation is shockingly out of character, but it was made necessary by Edward Hardwicke's unavailability in the former case and Jeremy Brett's illness in the latter.

I read all sixty Conan Doyle Holmes stories back when the Brett series was in its original run, and I noticed plenty of differences between the two. Heck, Brett's portrayal of Holmes was far more manic and expressive than the cold, saturnine, withdrawn figure described in prose. It did indeed take liberties, just as every adaptation does, just as every adaptation is supposed to. The word "adapt" means to change something to fit a new context or purpose. If all you want is something exactly like the original, just go back to the original itself. The whole point of doing an adaptation is to find a fresh take on the concept, to bring something new and different to it.

And I don't see what's so shocking about Watson punching Holmes. Watson was an English gentleman, which means he was brought up to consider fisticuffs an appropriate way to settle an affair of honor. And Holmes was an antisocial individual, so it's not impossible that he could've done something to offend Watson's honor, especially if it pertained to his fiancee as it did here. Sure, the Watson described in the stories might never have done such a thing, but since those stories were narrated by Dr. Watson himself, it follows that he wouldn't necessarily have been entirely forthcoming about his own less admirable moments, or about personal clashes with Holmes that he would've deemed inappropriate material to broadcast to the readers of The Strand.