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

[RJDiogenes]

^^ Exactly. It wouldn't be Miss Marple; it would be a new character who would have to stand on her own merits. Of course, a servant in the Ming Dynasty royal court named Miss Marple would be funnier than a contemporary detective named Sherlock Holmes.

Also important to Holmes is his bringing the field we know as forensics to a level that is far beyond that used by the police force around him. Taking him out of that period and into our world makes his skills rather redundant.

Exactly. The point of the character was not just his giant intellect, but his innovative techniques and his status as the world's first consulting detective. Without that, it's just not Holmes.

the new series is more than a century removed and makes no sense whatsoever

what?! WHAT?! WHAT?!

You're off your rocker, mate. it was brilliant and made perfect sense.

It was a decent series (not exactly brilliant), but as Sherlock Holmes it made no sense. How could it? Let me ask you this: Would the show have been any less brilliant if the character had been named Bartholomew Francencourt?

My point is, if you're going to make that many significant changes to a character-- why not just create a new character?

This is where you an I disagree. I don't see a change of location or time period as necessarily a change of character. For example, modern dress versions of Shakespeare. They are changing the time period, and in some ways making it easier for us to relate to, but I don't think the characters are changed.

Well, certainly, some characters are more easily transported than others. But some really aren't. It would be silly to do a story about Thomas Edison set in the 21st Century. "Next on Oprah: A man who has invented a glass bulb that glows in the dark." And even when it comes to Shakespeare, I'd rather see West Side Story than Romeo And Juliet in contemporary accouterments.

 

[Professor Zoom]

Well, certainly, some characters are more easily transported than others. But some really aren't. It would be silly to do a story about Thomas Edison set in the 21st Century. "Next on Oprah: A man who has invented a glass bulb that glows in the dark." And even when it comes to Shakespeare, I'd rather see West Side Story than Romeo And Juliet in contemporary accouterments.

Thomas Edison inventing the light bulb isn't his CHARACTER though. It was an event that happened in his life. His determination, how he behaved, how he over came his deafness to be a great inventor, THAT'S his character.

But, what is contemporary for Romeo and Juliet? When it was first performed it was performed in contemporary clothes. Contemporary for it's time. The play wasn't a historical. So, why should we treat it as such NOW?

 

[Australis]

Are we doing this dance again, RJ?

Edison wouldn't be going on Oprah in C21 with a light bulb. "Next: a man who has invented a light that doesn't need a glass bulb! Yoooooooo!"

 

[Nerys Myk]

Then there is the whole matter of Edison being a real person.

 

[Greg Cox]

Then there is the whole matter of Edison being a real person.

Since when has that stopped anyone?

Next you're going to tell me that H. G. Wells wasn't really a beautiful female scientist!

 

[CorporalCaptain]

No, H. G. Wells looked like Alex DeLarge with spectacles and a mustache.

 

[Avalon]

Then there is the whole matter of Edison being a real person.

Since when has that stopped anyone?

Next you're going to tell me that H. G. Wells wasn't really a beautiful female scientist!

Or that Tesla wasn't ever a vampire!

Pshaw!

 

[Gov Kodos]

No, H. G. Wells looked like Alex DeLarge with spectacles and a mustache.

Or Wallace Shawn

 

[Nerys Myk]

Next you're going to tell me Hitler wasn't killed at a film premiere.

 

[Greg Cox]

Or that Jack the Ripper didn't really escape into the future!

 

[scotpens]

. . . But, what is contemporary for Romeo and Juliet? When it was first performed it was performed in contemporary clothes. Contemporary for it's time. The play wasn't a historical. So, why should we treat it as such NOW?

Shakespeare can work in all sorts of period settings and backgrounds. Baz Luhrmann’s 1996 Romeo + Juliet (spelled with a plus sign for no discernible reason) was an interesting idea for doing the classic play in a modern setting. Unfortunately it was undone by weak acting by its principal stars and silly visual gimmicks like speed-ramping which already make the picture look dated.

 

[UssGlenn]

Also important to Holmes is his bringing the field we know as forensics to a level that is far beyond that used by the police force around him. Taking him out of that period and into our world makes his skills rather redundant.

Exactly. The point of the character was not just his giant intellect, but his innovative techniques and his status as the world's first consulting detective. Without that, it's just not Holmes.

what?! WHAT?! WHAT?!

You're off your rocker, mate. it was brilliant and made perfect sense.

It was a decent series (not exactly brilliant), but as Sherlock Holmes it made no sense. How could it? Let me ask you this: Would the show have been any less brilliant if the character had been named Bartholomew Francencourt?

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. I think the version in "Sherlock" is sufficiently similar to the original to cause claims off a rip-off were the name changed.

 

[CaptainCanada]

There is, really, nothing terribly unique about Holmes as a character now. Virtually every fictional detective is either of his type or consciously playing against his type. It's really just a question of whether the audience thinks this particular incarnation is skilled enough to be worthy of the name.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

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. I think the version in "Sherlock" is sufficiently similar to the original to cause claims off a rip-off were the name changed.

Interesting idea. I agree, this sounds like a pretty good criterion, at least to start with.

 

[Gepard]

Then there is the whole matter of Edison being a real person.

Since when has that stopped anyone?

Next you're going to tell me that H. G. Wells wasn't really a beautiful female scientist!

No, H. G. Wells looked like Alex DeLarge with spectacles and a mustache.

Then there is the whole matter of Edison being a real person.

Since when has that stopped anyone?

Next you're going to tell me that H. G. Wells wasn't really a beautiful female scientist!

Or that Tesla wasn't ever a vampire!

Pshaw!

Next you're going to tell me Hitler wasn't killed at a film premiere.

Or that Jack the Ripper didn't really escape into the future!

Caaaaaaare-fuuul. If we keep talking like this, we might inadvertently summon Doug Drexler again.

 

[UssGlenn]

the corollary to my test would be that if people can't tell you what the famous character is after you have "updated" it, you should change the name and call it a new character. No one would ever guess it was Miss Marple if she isn't old.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

the corollary to my test would be that if people can't tell you what the famous character is after you have "updated" it, you should change the name and call it a new character. No one would ever guess it was Miss Marple if she isn't old.

Right!

Unless you feel you just gotta milk that brand name anyway!

 

[RJDiogenes]

Thomas Edison inventing the light bulb isn't his CHARACTER though. It was an event that happened in his life. His determination, how he behaved, how he over came his deafness to be a great inventor, THAT'S his character.

But specific inventions, like the light bulb, are what he is known for; that's what makes him noteworthy. Similarly, Holmes is known for his pioneering forensic techniques and for being the world's first consulting detective. These attributes cannot be transplanted to the 21st Century.

But, what is contemporary for Romeo and Juliet? When it was first performed it was performed in contemporary clothes. Contemporary for it's time. The play wasn't a historical. So, why should we treat it as such NOW?

The archaic and poetic language, for one thing. Performing Shakespeare in contemporary accouterments is an anachronism; it can be a novelty, sure, but it's not really what I'm talking about anyway-- I've said that certain concepts are more mobile than others (with "why" being the remaining question).

Are we doing this dance again, RJ?

You betcha. I am Tenacious RJD.

Edison wouldn't be going on Oprah in C21 with a light bulb. "Next: a man who has invented a light that doesn't need a glass bulb! Yoooooooo!"

But then why call him Edison?

Then there is the whole matter of Edison being a real person.

Well, he just happened to pop into my head. How about Zorro fighting Spanish colonialism in 21st Century California? Call me crazy, but I think that would be pretty silly.

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. I think the version in "Sherlock" is sufficiently similar to the original to cause claims off a rip-off were the name changed.

Okay, I'll buy into that as far as it goes, but there's still the question of "Why?" If the character is so strong, and if the Victorian setting is irrelevant and his status as world's first consulting detective is irrelevant and his many innovations in the field of forensics are irrelevant and his deerstalker cap is irrelevant, then surely his name must be irrelevant.

 

[Gepard]

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.

 

[Capt_Pickirk]

They should make a movie about Edison being a horrible git, electrocuting elephants and being really pissy about Tesla's AC current. Oh wait...