Sherlock Holmes Movie..  

And Especially for it having been directed by Guy Ritchie!

I am sure they researched before making this movie. Then why should they ignore such issues. There is no sense in that. If people are using real locations, then they should keep it accurate, otherwise it becomes nonsense.

I have not seen the movie, though. I am commenting from whatever you have written.

too too too much fighting...

The thing is,with the Movie being set in London,People who have never BEEN in London may already been familiar with images of the River Thames,The Houses of Parliament and "Big Ben"..Some Artistic license was needed to fit these iconic Images and places into the Movie..after all,Many Movies set in say,Washington DC,may have only have a few establishing shots in that City,but most of the street filming could have been done with a Second Unit in Canada! Having visited Washington,I can recognise a DC "Metro" Train,and Some Movies Make the assumption many have not and that viewers don't mind seeing a "stand in" subway train system!..It's all in the attention to detail..

I agree with the need to fit in some well-known buildings, but you don't have to put them in the same picture. However, as it as a film, you just say that you didn't show all the time they actually used to get from place A to place B.

And I agree Guy Ritchie probably shouldn't need a map to know where things are in London.

It's true..there's not many movies I can think of that are/were filmed in "real time" (the "24" TV series is a notable exception),so much action or passage of time can take place off camera...it's the editing that got Me..one moment the character is in a sewer tunnel under Parliament,the next on top of the partially built Tower Bridge!

Maybe that's because it's not really Sherlock Holmes, but Superman! Not sure what he would do without phone boxes though ...
;-)

The books describe Holmes as Tall and thin,and the Basil Rathbone image for many people comes to the fore..I Must take another read of the books,just for background reference..

I had a problem with Basil Rathbone too.

I personally like William Gillette http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Gillette as Holmes best - apparently there is some speculation that the early art for the magazines used Gillette as their model.

I agree, Robert Downey Jr. doesn't fit the Holmes image in our mind. In the trailers, I have hardly seen him in his famour hat.

But, I do not have problems with that. They are making a movie. It is not a book adaptation. As long as he acts like a Holmes, I do not have a problem with anything. I am looking forward to watching this movie. I am really curious, how it will turn out.

One thing I've got to say for the trailers, that Watson isn't a buffoon, I always HATED that with the Rathbone movies - the man is a DOCTOR - D*MN it!!!

not to mention a veteran Soldier,too..The books seemed to Leave Watson on the outskirts of any action,though He could be relied on to bring along his old service pistol,if needed,but in this movie,He definitely had Holmes' Back with the Bad Guys!

There is some debate that Watson may have "down played" his role in the stores to build up the rep of Holmes.

Watson's Chronicle of Holmes' exploits mentions other cases Closed by the Detective,but says those featured were hand picked to highlight Holmes' deductive abilities..He could well be leaving out episodes where He had more of a contribution..

I've posted elsewhere about ebooks and an ebook app (free) I have on my phone...with the Sherlock holmes (free) stories loaded on it..I was in London this past week,reading Holmes stories riding around on a tube journey...

so, what do YOU think Holmes had against both the Underground and telephones?

I can't think why the Tube and the telephone weren't introduced into the Holmes stories as they were around at the time of the setting of the stories,but perhaps not too widespread as yet(?),unless the romantic image of the horse drawn cab and the use of the telegraph and telegrams added something the newer tech did not..

No, I haven't seen the movie - yet - but the friend I was out to the memorial service with yesterday highly recommended it.

I was aware that they were using Irene Alder as one of the characters.

Are you aware that Carole Nelson Douglas writes - or at least has written some Irene Alder mysteries - where she's solving them?

there were implications that the tube was being built, because they talk about construction and mud and the like - it is possible that Watson was even writing "after the fact" so the events were actually happening a bit earlier than we knew, so the tube went fewer places and the phone was rarer or virtually non-existent.

Who knows, Conan Doyle had issues...

If You're going in to this Movie with just that knowledge about Holmes being A Detective with Genius deductive skills,You'll probably enjoy it.It also Fleshes out some of Holmes' Background-Watson refers to Holmes (In the books-Most of the original Holmes stories are from Watson's Perspective!) as being a capable fighter,and a Master of Disguise,among other skills..

The story is a New one for this Movie,so you could say it's "Based" on the Sherlock Holmes Stories,with most of the Main Characters being recognisable as having Featured in the Books..The main differerence being "Irene Adler"'s prominence in the Movie,She only having appeared in One of the Stories,then disappeared,a "Wanted" Person..

You'd be surprised how many actors have Portrayed Holmes in Movie and TV Productions,never mind stage productions!

I should mention the Movie's story is New,and Not one from the series of books and magazine articles..but the Characters in the Movie are recognisable from having been portrayed in the books

I think Downey put in a good performance,giving Holmes a very Human portrayal,even letting it be seen that "The Great Detective" can make mistakes at times..Hope you enjoyed the Movie! (Me,I'm looking forward to seeing him in "Iron Man 2" as well..)

It wouldn't be your thing? I take it You didn't go with them?