[Monolith]

Originally Posted by Roman5

Calm it down eh Monolith, you've only been here 5 minutes.


I haven't seen the movie yet and I'm sure I'll enjoy it. However, from what I've seen of it, it's a typical hollywood-dumbed down-in-your-face action adventure for the masses and not truly representative of sherlock holmes at all.

I love Guy Ritchie. All of his films are smart, witty, and fun. Nothing dumbed down about them.

[gray pierce]

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!

[Monolith]

Originally Posted by gray pierce

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

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!

Get it? Joke? I'm kidding. haha My point is that Doyle could have added more depth to Holmes, which Richie did. Don't misread that either. Holmes had a lot of depth in the books, but so many representations of Holmes in Comics, Films, Novels are SO GENERIC and bland. Richie by far did the most justice to the character. Sure it may not be 110% like the original, but it provided an engaging character.

This film was like the Iron Man of the series. It didn't shove everything that made Sherlock, Sherlock in one film. The fighting for instance. You say its bad that it was the center of attention, but how is that different from each and every book? Do you think Holmes on the case of Cthulhu cult not different enough from the Holmes books? My point is that you are picking at things that really don't matter.

I can also argue on how different Dark Knight was to the batman series. Does it make the film any less stunning and well made? Absolutely not.

My argument ends here. I know not everyone are critical thinkers, but I just want to point out that certain things don't make sense.

[gray pierce]

Originally Posted by Monolith

Get it? Joke? I'm kidding. haha My point is that Doyle could have added more depth to Holmes, which Richie did. Don't misread that either. Holmes had a lot of depth in the books, but so many representations of Holmes in Comics, Films, Novels are SO GENERIC and bland. Richie by far did the most justice to the character. Sure it may not be 110% like the original, but it provided an engaging character.

This film was like the Iron Man of the series. It didn't shove everything that made Sherlock, Sherlock in one film. The fighting for instance. You say its bad that it was the center of attention, but how is that different from each and every book? Do you think Holmes on the case of Cthulhu cult not different enough from the Holmes books? My point is that you are picking at things that really don't matter.

I can also argue on how different Dark Knight was to the batman series. Does it make the film any less stunning and well made? Absolutely not.

My argument ends here. I know not everyone are critical thinkers, but I just want to point out that certain things don't make sense.

I did get it was some sort of word joke but I thought it wasn't all that funny and well...rather rude. But that is of course just my opinion and maybe I have a poor sense of humor.

And yes many representations of Holmes were very generic! Wich is probably why I liked Richard Roxburgh's so reviled performance of the titular character.

Comparing it to Iron Man could be a reason why I didn't like the movie seeing as I didn't like that one either. Not because it was a poor adaptation, I can't tell anything about that since I've never read an Iron Man comic and do not intent to either. Furthermore I do not recall fighting being at the center of each and every book. It did feature every now and then but not as much as in this film. And yes I have to say I shivered at first at the idea of Holmes being pitted against Cthulu. But when I then saw how the story was realized my worries were gone because I personally feel that although the stories greatly differ the games breath the same atmospere as the books. and in the end that's what it's all about in my opinion. Not the story or the characters but the atmosphere! The feeling you get, that should be the same! And since we're pulling other examples into the discussion: Clive Cussler sued the makers of Sahara for not sticking to the original novel. I think that is ridiculous! I've read the novel, loved it. Then went to see the movie and loved it just as much. Sure, the story's not quite the same as the novel but the atmosphere was. The characters and their interaction were exactly like in the novel and it featured just as much smashbang action and I was laughing at exactly the same kind of jokes as in the novel.

Also about "The Dark Knight", I can imagine a lot of Batman fans being disapointed. I'm not one of them, in fact "The Dark Knight" was the first Batman film I've seen but I belief it is very different from the comics. I liked it, a lot and thought it to be a good movie though I hardly found it stunning. It sure was deep and had great characters but when I think of stunning movies I much more think of movies such as "Se7en" and "The Usual Suspects" but once again that's just my taste

I guess that in the end it all comes down to what your primary audience consists of and whether you've pleased them or not to say that your movie is good or not.

[Monolith]

Originally Posted by gray pierce

Also about "The Dark Knight", I can imagine a lot of Batman fans being disapointed. I'm not one of them, in fact "The Dark Knight" was the first Batman film I've seen but I belief it is very different from the comics. I liked it, a lot and thought it to be a good movie though I hardly found it stunning. It sure was deep and had great characters but when I think of stunning movies I much more think of movies such as "Se7en" and "The Usual Suspects" but once again that's just my taste

Surprisingly, we pretty much have the same taste in movies. haha Minus Iron Man and Sherlock of course.

My sort of films also are 2001 Space Odyssey, Memento, Silence of the Lambs, Moon, No Country For Old Men, American Beauty and others.

69% by Critics and 87% by the people on Rottentomatoes. Those are really good scores. Guess the film by general consensus, is really good.

[zobraks]

I prefer brawn to brain, so "Sherlock and the Two Smoking barrels" is OK with me. My only complaint is with the choice of the main actor since (in my OPINION) Jean-Claude Van Damme would fit perfectly:


He looks almost exactly the same as Robert Downey Junior and acts better. Not to mention that he is a much better fighter than RDJ.

I friend of mine suggested a tagline for Sherlock Holmes (2009): "The name is Holmes... Sherlock Holmes."


On topic: I'm looking forward to any new SH title, as long as it isn't some "beat'em up" game.

[gray pierce]

Originally Posted by Monolith

Surprisingly, we pretty much have the same taste in movies. haha Minus Iron Man and Sherlock of course.

My sort of films also are 2001 Space Odyssey, Memento, Silence of the Lambs, Moon, No Country For Old Men, American Beauty and others.

69% by Critics and 87% by the people on Rottentomatoes. Those are really good scores. Guess the film by general consensus, is really good.

Having read some reviews from non-professional critics(thus the audience) I'd say the film is "mediocre" From what I've read most people say that as a film it is good but nothing really special and as an adpatation it's crappy. Thus bringing me to the final conclusion: "mediocre" That's still a lot more than what I thaught of it. But as a general concensus I'd say that's rather acurate. But then again I might've been looking on the wrong site.

Als just to be cheesy: 2001: Great, Memento: Great, Silence of the Lambs: More than Great, Moon: Haven't seen it yet but will do so pretty soon. No Country for Old Men: Blech! But I'm in the very vast minority on that one. American Beauty: Great again! I'd like to add "The Prestige" "Insomnia" (yes I love my Chris Nolan) "Shutter Island", "Mystic River", "Heavens Fall" and "Pan's Labyrinth" to the list.

[Ascovel]

Originally Posted by Roman5

I haven't seen the movie yet and I'm sure I'll enjoy it. However, from what I've seen of it, it's a typical hollywood-dumbed down-in-your-face action adventure for the masses and not truly representative of sherlock holmes at all.

It's true that it is for the masses, but that's because the character of Sherlock Holmes has always had mass appeal and all of his adventures have been entertaining, and often shocking, mysteries. In my opinion the new film is a very good representation of the books - I'd say one of the best feature film adaptations of Holmes so far.

But yes, it is more action-packed than most, although Holmes' action scenes are less cheesy here than in the older ones, where he often abruptly turned from a perfect gentleman into a wrestler, or a sword-fighter.

[Monolith]

Originally Posted by gray pierce

Als just to be cheesy: 2001: Great, Memento: Great, Silence of the Lambs: More than Great, Moon: Haven't seen it yet but will do so pretty soon. No Country for Old Men: Blech! But I'm in the very vast minority on that one. American Beauty: Great again! I'd like to add "The Prestige" "Insomnia" (yes I love my Chris Nolan) "Shutter Island", "Mystic River", "Heavens Fall" and "Pan's Labyrinth" to the list.

You're still on the ball. Prestige: Absolutely loved it. Insomnia: Great (Can't go wrong with Nolan). Shutter Island: Haven't seen it yet, but really wanted to. Mystic River: Got that during Awards show, really enjoyed it. Heavens Fall: I haven't seen this movie. Sounds interesting. Pans Labyrinth: I can't say anything bad about it. Guillermo Del Toro is my idol.

Another film I like is "City of the Lost Children".



In the end, Sherlock Holmes is just like Films based on Games. Most of them are hit or miss, and the latest Film fit the bill more than others.

[gray pierce]

Originally Posted by Monolith

You're still on the ball. Prestige: Absolutely loved it. Insomnia: Great (Can't go wrong with Nolan). Shutter Island: Haven't seen it yet, but really wanted to. Mystic River: Got that during Awards show, really enjoyed it. Heavens Fall: I haven't seen this movie. Sounds interesting. Pans Labyrinth: I can't say anything bad about it. Guillermo Del Toro is my idol.

Another film I like is "City of the Lost Children".



In the end, Sherlock Holmes is just like Films based on Games. Most of them are hit or miss, and the latest Film fit the bill more than others.

Well I should tell you that by general concensus "Heavens Fall" is not a particularly good film, only got a 6,9 approval rating at IMDb so you might be dissapointed. I just really liked it. And I'm definetely gonna watch "City of the Lost Children" Sounds very good! Can't quite imagine Ron Perlman without red make up though. Also really good films but not quite for the books just yet.

[Dale Baldwin]

If you want to continue your conversation about your personal film preferences, please do so via PM, before this thread goes even further off-topic than it's already started to.

[gray pierce]

Of course you're right. My apologies

[RockNFknRoll]

i truly hope they're making another full scale challenging adventure. the last three sherlock holmes games have been really refreshing to me. although i thought "jack the ripper" was definitely the weakest.

same goes for kheops. these two companies have made some of the most fun, playable, 21st century adventure games in the last decade. it'd be kinda heart breaking to see them abandon them for casual games.

[RockNFknRoll]

btw if you're aching for a sherlock holmes adventure and haven't played it, i highly recommend the Lost Files Of Sherlock Holmes series. especially 2. it's one of the deepest, most intelligent adventures i've played that so many people missed out on. incredible dialogue and writing, and it's very long and substantial.

[cbman]

Originally Posted by RockNFknRoll

btw if you're aching for a sherlock holmes adventure and haven't played it, i highly recommend the Lost Files Of Sherlock Holmes series. especially 2. it's one of the deepest, most intelligent adventures i've played that so many people missed out on. incredible dialogue and writing, and it's very long and substantial.

Those games are a sore point for me... I have them but i can't run them on my laptop. Bloody modern technology!

Actually, it's east to see the influence of the Case of the Serrated sclapel on Frogwares choosing to do a Sherlock holmes vs Jack the Ripper game.

[RockNFknRoll]

Originally Posted by cbman

Those games are a sore point for me... I have them but i can't run them on my laptop. Bloody modern technology!

dude, DOSBOX!!

and get the D-Fed Reloaded front-end. It makes things super simple and user friendly to get it going. Couldn't be easier or smoother running.

[cbman]

Originally Posted by RockNFknRoll

dude, DOSBOX!!

and get the D-Fed Reloaded front-end. It makes things super simple and user friendly to get it going. Couldn't be easier or smoother running.

I've tried DOS box but i can't get it setup. I'm not good with technical stuff.

What's this D-Fed thing?

[RockNFknRoll]

Originally Posted by cbman

I've tried DOS box but i can't get it setup. I'm not good with technical stuff.

What's this D-Fed thing?

it's made precisely for you. it's like an easy interface for setting up and using dosbox. you can just drag in the game folder and play it.

http://dfendreloaded.sourceforge.net/Download.html

[cbman]

Originally Posted by RockNFknRoll

it's made precisely for you. it's like an easy interface for setting up and using dosbox. you can just drag in the game folder and play it.

http://dfendreloaded.sourceforge.net/Download.html

Thanks a lot for this link!

Well, Case of the Serrated Scalpel plays just nicely so it appears to be a nice little programme. Thanks for the heads up about this.

Originally Posted by RockNFknRoll

btw if you're aching for a sherlock holmes adventure and haven't played it, i highly recommend the Lost Files Of Sherlock Holmes series. especially 2. it's one of the deepest, most intelligent adventures i've played that so many people missed out on. incredible dialogue and writing, and it's very long and substantial.

I played some of the Lost Files of Sherlock Holmes: The Case of the Rose Tattoo
many years ago and got bored. I'd probably enjoy it more now, but tbh, what I like and crave about the frogwares games is the 3D and 1st person perspective.