Quote:
Originally Posted by Monolith
In terms of fighting. In The Sign of the Four, Holmes introduces himself to a prize-fighter as: “The amateur who fought three rounds with you at Alison’s rooms on the night of your benefit four years back.” McMurdo responds by saying, “Ah, you’re one that has wasted your gifts, you have! You might have aimed high, if you had joined the fancy.” In “The Adventure of the Empty House”, Holmes tells Watson how he used martial arts to overcome uber-villain Professor Moriarty at the Reichenbach Falls. He states that “I have some knowledge, however, of baritsu, or the Japanese system of wrestling, which has more than once been very useful to me.”
In terms of Intellect. Holmes is a heavy cocaine addict.
In terms of humor. You are a joke. Humor adds depth to a character. Based on how many times I talked about Depth in Character, this is the very thing that makes a character who they are. If they have no humor, the character shouldn't be stale, but cold to other characters. If a character is a coke addict and witty, they should be intelligently funny. Doesn't matter if Doyles didn't have humor, it doesn't make it any less important.
I guess its just the fanboyness coming out from you that made you think the film is so bad. You got to realize that some people have different visions for a certain subject. And in my OPINION, the film was great.
|
I never said fighting didn't play a part at all in the books. it does I know! But there's never ever as moch of it as was in the movie! That what I meant with "
Holmes fighting skills were at the center of the movie as opposed to being used every now and then as in the books" I think that pretty much explains my complaint
In terms of intellect: he is a heavy cocaine addict. So? He also was in the books and he had a fabulous intellect (on some parts) there
Then what worries me most: humor. It doesn't matter if Doyle didn't have any humor? Hellooo, you're adapting the Conan Doyle universe here.
I agree with you that every one should be entitled to their opinion and I'm dreadfully sorry if you felt I impeded on yours. As to the movie I said it could've been a good movie were it not called "Sherlock Holmes" Let me make it personal: When I go and see a movie that is called that or is iffiliated with this character I expect to experience the same atmosphere as in the stories. It is after all an
adaptation. If I do not experience such a thing I am disapointed and I have every right to say the makers failed in living up to my expectations. Seeing as there are millions of Conan Doyle lovers all over the world I think I'm probably not the only one feeling about it in such a way.
Finally, why do you have to go out your way and call me a joke? I didn't call you a joke did I? You're not! You're a well thinking person just as I am! Wich is why I feel quite insulted. You may disagree with my opinions but you can't disagree with my personallity. Rather poor I say spurning such words!