Sherlock Holmes (Starring Robert Downey Jr and Jude Law) trailer

[Cognitive Gear]

The upcomming Sherlock Holmes movie, directed by Guy Ritchie (Snatch, RocknRolla) and starring Robert Downey Jr and Jude Law now has a trailer!

Click here!

This looks like a whole lot of fun.

[KumaruRockz]

A Sherlock Holmes movie about witchcraft? xD

[goldenspines]

You know, I hadn't heard about this before. Which is sad, because I often call myself a fan of Sherlock Holmes stories.

At any rate, this looks facinating. Not exactly sure how all the actors will do, but it looks promising, at least. I'll have to keep an eye on it. Thanks for posting the trailer. ^_^

[Radical Dreamer]

Not being a fan of Robert Downey Jr., the movie looks pretty promising if it doesn't have as much most-likely-unnecessary sex as the trailer implies. XD It could be interesting!

[KumaruRockz]

I think RDJ is awesome...

[minakichan]

This looks AWESOME. There are way too many representations of Holmes as some sleek, classy gentleman, so I'm really glad to see him as ECCENTRIC.

Not being a fan of Robert Downey Jr., the movie looks pretty promising if it doesn't have as much most-likely-unnecessary sex as the trailer implies. XD It could be interesting!

THAT is the only thing that peeves me. That's about as disappointing as if they had homoerotic subtext. Holmes is CLEARLY asexual, even misogynistic.

[KumaruRockz]

THAT is the only thing that peeves me. That's about as disappointing as if they had homoerotic subtext. Holmes is CLEARLY asexual, even misogynistic.

It makes him human. No man can live life without feeling SOME attraction towards women.

[Maledicte]

Human, yes, but Holmes is also a weirdo. I think that one of the main reasons that he "fell" for Irene Adler was because she outwitted him; if I remember correctly, there wasn't any indication that he was interested in her beforehand. But I digress.

It doesn't look like a whole lot of detecting will be happening in this movie, but what the heck. I'll see it. That hammer part was funny. First we had Batman and Wolverine in the Victorian era; now we have Iron Man and Sky Captain!

Funny how Mark Holmes looks more like the traditional Holmes than RBJ.

[KumaruRockz]

I think RDJ will bring a funny witty side to Holmes. I always pictured Holmes as a little sarcastic lol.

[minakichan]

It makes him human. No man can live life without feeling SOME attraction towards women.

No.

No no no.

Asexuals make up 1-2% of the population. These are people who do not feel romantic attraction to ANYONE of either gender. It is ABSOLUTELY possible. Newton was asexual, Tesla was asexual, heck, Jesus and many other Biblical figures were probably asexual.

Secondly, there are homosexuals, although Holmes is not one.

[quote]
Human, yes, but Holmes is also a weirdo. I think that one of the main reasons that he "fell" for Irene Adler was because she outwitted him]

Watson actually says, "It was not that he felt any emotion akin to love for Irene Adler." So it's probably more like extreme respect, even admiration, than anything romantic.

[ShiroiHikari]

Not being a fan of Robert Downey Jr., the movie looks pretty promising if it doesn't have as much most-likely-unnecessary sex as the trailer implies. XD It could be interesting!

For some reason, your post makes absolutely no sense to me. Maybe it's because you said you're not a fan of Robert Downey Jr. XD

Anyway, yeah, this movie does sound interesting. I like Jude Law and RDJ was fricking awesome as Tony Stark, so...might be fun.

[Radical Dreamer]

For some reason, your post makes absolutely no sense to me. Maybe it's because you said you're not a fan of Robert Downey Jr. XD

Anyway, yeah, this movie does sound interesting. I like Jude Law and RDJ was fricking awesome as Tony Stark, so...might be fun.

LOL! Re-reading it, yeah, it makes no sense at all, really! I think what I mean to say is that I don't like Robert Downey Jr., but I think the movie could be fun regardless if there's not too much unnecessary sex in it. XD

...Yes, that makes somewhat more sense, I think. XD

[Cognitive Gear]

For those that aren't familiar with Guy Ritchie's past films, you should definitely expect this to be a different Holmes than you are accustomed to. If this is in line with his past ventures (which it appears to be) we can expect a tons of action, quick witty banter, and more than a few eccentric characters. I wouldn't expect too much investigative genius.

It will be a really fun ride, though.

[Sheol777]

As a Sherlock Holmes movie? WRONG WRONG WRONG!

As a victorian era adventure movie? I'd watch it.

[GhostontheNet]

Glad to head the reception around here is more warm. In a very hostile thread at Theology Web (link), I've been one of the film's few defenders, but have managed to hold my ground pretty well.

[Fish and Chips]

For those that aren't familiar with Guy Ritchie's past films, you should definitely expect this to be a different Holmes than you are accustomed to. If this is in line with his past ventures (which it appears to be) we can expect a tons of action, quick witty banter, and more than a few eccentric characters. I wouldn't expect too much investigative genius.

Sherlock Holmes is probably the most reliably written deus ex machina known to man, always only as knowledgeable as the story requires him to be, which frequently meant a lot of bizarre trivia no rational human being would ever need. Tattoos of the East China Sea shipping industry? Really Mr. Holmes?

Frankly, the Holmes I'm accustomed to couldn't be played by anything less than an eccentric. I just might have to expand my horizons for this one, though I wish they didn't just call it Sherlock Holmes. Give it the pulp-ish title it deserves like in the magazine serials.

[Scarecrow]

I've been looking forward to this for a while and really was pleased with the trailer ^_^ Though Jude Law looked more like how I always pictured SH... Anyway it looks fun. Sounds interesting, can't wait!

[Kkun]

[quote="minakichan (post: 1313031)"]No.

No no no.

Asexuals make up 1-2%]

They're all missing out.

As far as the movie goes, though, it looks like a decent film and a Sherlock Holmes adventure in name only. I'll give it a shot when it comes out, though. I like RDJ.

[Bobtheduck]

They're all missing out.

As far as the movie goes, though, it looks like a decent film and a Sherlock Holmes adventure in name only. I'll give it a shot when it comes out, though. I like RDJ.

I have an asexual friend. I envy him a lot.

I think when classics are adapted, there will always be problems with those trying to update them. It's why I'm against loose adaptations. I think, at the very least, 2 options should be open. The broad audience friendly option and the faithful option.

[Mr. SmartyPants]

After also seeing The Soloist, I can say that as odd as it seems that RDJ is in this film, I can't wait! It looks like it'll be good!

[Kkun]

I think when classics are adapted, there will always be problems with those trying to update them. It's why I'm against loose adaptations. I think, at the very least, 2 options should be open. The broad audience friendly option and the faithful option.

I agree. This one is definitely taking the loose adaptation route. I've watched the trailer a couple of times now and I'm just not feeling it. Like I said, I'm going to give it a fair shot, but this looks like one that will end up in the $5 bin at Wal Mart in six or seven years.

[GhostontheNet]

No.

No no no.

Asexuals make up 1-2% of the population. These are people who do not feel romantic attraction to ANYONE of either gender. It is ABSOLUTELY possible. Newton was asexual, Tesla was asexual, heck, Jesus and many other Biblical figures were probably asexual.

Secondly, there are homosexuals, although Holmes is not one.

You confuse people who do not explicitly display any kind of sexual behavior owing to their commitment to some type of cause with those to whom sexuality has no bearing on their psychology whatsoever. In these individuals, it can be difficult to figure out the exact nature of their sexuality, although you can find little hints here and there that it is being sublimated through their work. Is it really to much to assume of men of science like Newton and Tesla who have a deep lifelong passion for exploring nature and her mysteries that they embody Platonic eros, the indwelling longing for truth? And while discussions about Jesus' sexuality are always prone to raise a few eyebrows, and while we don't have much to go on owing to his lifelong rabbinical celibacy, the New Testament's insistence that he took on the full extent of the human condition and was tempted by everything that tempts us makes it highly unlikely they believed Jesus was asexual. Now, in the case of Sherlock Holmes in particular, I argued the following at Theology Web.

You confuse 'no overt sexual behavior in the story' with 'no sense of sexuality at all.' The problem with this approach is that like everyone, Holmes is a gendered being who has a sex drive. So even if he remained completely celibate throughout his entire lifespan in Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's stories, sexuality would still play a factor in his psychology even if it was sublimated into something else (like detective work). After all, is it too much to assume that a man who goes about adventuring and sluething has at least a bit of testosterone going, or does it matter that he is a man at all? Could Sherlock Holmes be a woman and do the exact same things, or would this create fundamental differences in his or her sense of identity?

[goldenspines]

Theology aside, I agree with this statement.

Frankly, the Holmes I'm accustomed to couldn't be played by anything less than an eccentric. I just might have to expand my horizons for this one, though I wish they didn't just call it Sherlock Holmes. Give it the pulp-ish title it deserves like in the magazine serials.

A title often tells a lot about a movie, which makes me worry for this one. o.o Though every time I watch the trailer, I get renewed hope.

[bigsleepj]

Sherlock Holmes and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull?

[Etoh*the*Greato]

It looks like it will probably be a fantastic film, and RDJ is always a lot of fun, but I can't help but think that it might have been more well received in the public at large had it been billed as something other than a Sherlock Holmes movie. Am I saying there is no possible way it will be a faithful adaptation? No, but al the adaptations of the franchise in the past have created such a heavy connotation and expectation of what Holmes is and should be that this could end up being reviewed poorly.

Also, did anyone else totally get a "Wild Wild West" vibe off of it?

[bigsleepj]

Also, did anyone else totally get a "Wild Wild West" vibe off of it?

Not really, though I can understand the comparison. For me, though, there is not enough giant Steampunk metal spiders, which was the definitive thing for me about the Wild Wild West. The vibe actually feels slightly closer to a somewhat forgotten special effects popcorn film from the 1980's called Young Sherlock Holmes, which had Holmes investigate an occult-related plot.

[Etoh*the*Greato]

It was less the steampunk aspect and more that they've taken an existing franchise which has fallen out of the public eye for being "stodgy" or something like that and turned it in to a fresh new thing, with wild and zany stars and most importantly a "sexier" coat of paint.

[ShiroiHikari]

This is perhaps the wrong thread to say this in, but I think the new Land of the Lost makes a good comparison to Wild Wild West in that they're both trying to make old TV shows "hip". We saw what happened with Wild Wild West, and from the previews, it looks like pretty much the same thing happened to Land of the Lost.

Anyway, I'm interested in this film solely because of the actors. If it turns out to be clever, well, that's even better. I won't be getting my hopes up though.

[GhostontheNet]

A Sherlock Holmes movie about witchcraft? xD

As a strong believer in the rational order of nature, Sherlock Holmes has always invited stories that communicate with the genre of Gothic horror, in which a supernatural menace of seeming irrationality plays havok upon us mortals. Of course, for Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, these stories always ended with the verdict that anything that seemed to be supernatural was, in the final analysis, directly attributable to natural causes. Even so, as a spiritualist, Doyle rejected this hyper-rationalism of his creation, and really did believe in ghosts. For future authors, however, the precedence was clearly set to place real supernatural beings in his way to see what happens and how he reacts to it. It is not, then, as strange as it might seem.

It was less the steampunk aspect and more that they've taken an existing franchise which has fallen out of the public eye for being "stodgy" or something like that and turned it in to a fresh new thing, with wild and zany stars and most importantly a "sexier" coat of paint.

If you ask me, the problem with Sherlock Holmes as a subject for films has been that the series The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes was so well done that it is a very difficult act to follow. Since then, any film that attempts a relatively straightforward approach to the Sherlock Holmes myth is almost instantly doomed to look pale in comparison. In this respect, taking the character of Sherlock Holmes and applying the same sense of steampunk adventure found in movies like Wild Wild West and Van Helsing that both reaffirm and subvert their source material is a good approach for making a new movie.

[Maledicte]

This is perhaps the wrong thread to say this in, but I think the new Land of the Lost makes a good comparison to Wild Wild West in that they're both trying to make old TV shows "hip". We saw what happened with Wild Wild West, and from the previews, it looks like pretty much the same thing happened to Land of the Lost.

My theory is that the Granada series starring Jeremy Brett was the mindblowingly definitive and awesomely accurate version, so they decided not to even attempt to go in the same direction since it was done so well before.

*I just realized I said pretty much what GhostontheNet just said. Heh.*

Or maybe they just wanted to see more of Holmes punching people. There's not enough of Holmes punching people.

Anyway, I'm interested in this film solely because of the actors. If it turns out to be clever, well, that's even better. I won't be getting my hopes up though.

I'm in the same boat as you.

Though at the very end of the trailer with Holmes in the bed, I keep imagining him saying, "Let's face it, this is not the worst thing you've caught me doing."