Tweak

InsaneJournal

Tweak says, "He vas my BOYFRIEND."

espanolbot (espanolbot) wrote in scans_daily,
@ 2009-05-24 22:10:00

Entry tags:

char: dracula, char: sherlock holmes, creator: warren ellis, title: planetary

Robert Downey Jr's Sherlock Holmes, plus Planetary and news on a Dr Jekyll/Mr Hyde film

And the trailer,

I think that it looks good. :)

EDIT: Ok, maybe I should explain so I don't have to repeat myself.

The film does have action in it, but it's only using the things that are referenced in the books.

This is only the trailer, so they have to focus on the more visually exciting pieces of the film to attract viewers.

Also regarding the hat, the stereotypical clothing worn by Holmes, deerstalker etc. are normally clothes worn by people who were out in the country. So him wearing widebrimmed hats and that are possibly what he was intended to wear, the illustrators possibly just wanted him to look more distinctive/ copied the design from a story with a rural setting.

In semi-related news, Keanu Reeves is set to play Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde,
http://www.empireonline.com/News/story.asp?nid=24747

Downey is a competant actor who has shown in films such as Chaplin that he can do an English accent, yell about this instead if you want to yell about miscasting.

(Post a new comment)

	majingojira 2009-05-24 05:10 pm UTC (link)
	That trailer makes me think the producers are trying to hard to tailor it to the American Idiot Action audience. At least they remembered that Holmes is a weirdo. (Reply to this) (Thread)

espanolbot
2009-05-24 05:17 pm UTC (link)

The director of the film said that he wanted to make a version of Holmes that was different from the previous film, stage and tv versions by including the more action-orientated stuff from the books that was often left out of other versions.

So they include him boxing, doing that variation of Judo I think that Doyole created for the books, savant, that sort of thing.

Plus this is only the trailer, chances are there's more detective work and stuff in the actual film itself.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

majingojira, 2009-05-24 05:34 pm UTC

espanolbot, 2009-05-24 05:34 pm UTC

khaosworks, 2009-05-24 05:34 pm UTC

espanolbot, 2009-05-24 05:35 pm UTC

khaosworks, 2009-05-24 05:36 pm UTC

icon_uk, 2009-05-24 06:16 pm UTC

espanolbot, 2009-05-24 06:21 pm UTC

icon_uk, 2009-05-24 06:29 pm UTC

filthysize.livejournal.com, 2009-05-24 06:54 pm UTC

	taggerung301 2009-05-24 05:31 pm UTC (link)
	well, I think this looks pretty sweet I suppose I am part of the American Idiot Action audience then oh well, as my father would say: "If you're born a fool and you know it, then at least make sure that you enjoy yourself" (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

stig, 2009-05-24 06:01 pm UTC

sailorlibra, 2009-05-25 11:53 pm UTC

Yuck.

stig
2009-05-24 05:26 pm UTC (link)

It's no good returning to the 'social misfit' iteration of the character if you're then just going to throw him into a brainless occult paranormal blockbuster adventure story. We know from the original material and from brilliant adaptations such as "House" that Holmes is not, as the trailer seems to imply, a cross between Indiana Jones and James Bond living in a romantically designed steampunk metropolis. Look, they've even got Jones' business with hats, and tendency to suddenly run into a gigantic thug who he needs to beat up.

Sherlock Holmes is a vaguely misogynistic manic-depressive who has to turn to drugs to satisfy his unnaturally insatiable intellect, living in a dank and dirty London filled with depressingly dull personalities, one or two of whom might provide him with some sort of challenge for a day or two. This was Conan-Doyle's skill, and hence Holmes'; to take situations and events that would seem extraordinary - e.g., returning from the dead, begging for a living, being savaged by a spectral hound - and pull away the curtain to show that they had a logical and/or mundane explanation, grounding them in the reality of their audience in a similar manner to Dickens' attempts to demonstrate the ravages of poverty throughhis own work.

This is the opposite; an attempt to take a character originally built so that you could believe he really existed, and miring him in a genre that he is unfamiliar with - like setting Don Quixote as a post-WW2 romantic tragedy. Had Holmes himself seen that trailer, I've no doubt he'd give the samerwaction as he had to Watson's notes on "A Study In Scarlet" - nothing more than 'romantic drivel'.

And, with all that taken into account, it seems far too similar to the LoEG movie. That'snever a good sign, surely?

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Yuck.

espanolbot
2009-05-24 05:33 pm UTC (link)

It isn't real supernatural occurances, the villain just happens to be a Satanist who is inspired by Aleister Crowley.

"Sherlock Holmes is a vaguely misogynistic manic-depressive who has to turn to drugs to satisfy his unnaturally insatiable intellect, living in a dank and dirty London filled with depressingly dull personalities, one or two of whom might provide him with some sort of challenge for a day or two. This was Conan-Doyle's skill, and hence Holmes'; to take situations and events that would seem extraordinary - e.g., returning from the dead, begging for a living, being savaged by a spectral hound - and pull away the curtain to show that they had a logical and/or mundane explanation, grounding them in the reality of their audience in a similar manner to Dickens' attempts to demonstrate the ravages of poverty throughhis own work."

This is the route they're taking.

Although the director has said that they are going to use some of the more action orientated stuff from the books that is often excluded from other adaptions, being able to box and straighten a poker with his bare hands for example, this IS just the trailer.

They have to put the more exiting bits in, because people standing around describing things aren't exactly gripping cinema, despite that being only a piece of the character it isn't exactly going to look that interesting on the trailer.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

stig, 2009-05-24 05:45 pm UTC

Re: Yuck.

pensive1
2009-05-24 05:49 pm UTC (link)

Vaguely misogynistic? Not in the stories, he's not. I've read all the tales, I'm a woman, and I never saw that at all. Sherlock treats women fairly enough, he just doesn't have the time to worry about romance. Can't speak for the film or this comic tho.

As far as the supernatural element in this comic and the movie, I call shenanigans. I have so many quotes from the Holmes stories that deride the supernatural/ghosts/vampires that I won't quote them all here. But, pah.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

espanolbot, 2009-05-24 05:52 pm UTC

pensive1, 2009-05-24 05:54 pm UTC

icon_uk, 2009-05-24 07:24 pm UTC

darklorelei, 2009-05-24 07:37 pm UTC

stig, 2009-05-24 06:02 pm UTC

pensive1, 2009-05-24 06:05 pm UTC

dejadrew, 2009-05-24 08:39 pm UTC

pensive1, 2009-05-25 12:03 am UTC

redreplicant, 2009-05-25 09:00 pm UTC

	filbypott 2009-05-24 05:30 pm UTC (link)
	That isn't Holmes. It's Tony Stark faking a British accent. (Reply to this) (Thread)

liarashadowsong
2009-05-24 07:48 pm UTC (link)

Hahahahahahaha!!! Thank you. I personally think I'll probably see the movie, but your comment nevertheless just made my day. That was my first thought, too, when I heard who was playing the lead, but then I watched the trailer and decided that it had enough promise to probably merit watching anyways. Also, I totally want to see a fanfic where Tony gets, like, cast as the lead in a stage adaption or something of Sherlock Holmes (a charity show put on by either the Avengers or his company?). *continues giggling*

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	foxhack 2009-05-24 05:39 pm UTC (link)
	Dear Belmont Family, That's how you stop Dracula. Don't kill him, just stick him in a freezer somewhere. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	mullon 2009-05-24 05:52 pm UTC (link)
	But then they'd be out of a job. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	scottyquick 2009-05-24 05:44 pm UTC (link)
	Hey, naked RDJ! (Reply to this)

pensive1
2009-05-24 05:52 pm UTC (link)

I quit reading after Sherlock said the guy is still shitting in the woods. I know he's not a fan of doing the American accent HIMSELF but on other people? Please. He's not derisive in a petty way. He's above that.

I have my own gripes about the movie, even though I really enjoy RDJ's work. The film simply does not "need" Irene Adler-- the tales stood on their own as friendship pieces without the need for love interests. I'm glad for an active Holmes, as he certainly was a fighter (when he wasn't depressed and slothy between cases). But fighting to blow off steam? Strike.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

	espanolbot 2009-05-24 05:56 pm UTC (link)
	How do you know he's fighting to blow off steam? He might have entered the boxing ring (in what appears to be in one of the many poor parts of London or somewhere) to gain information or some how. Holmes doesn't really seem to be the Fight Club kind of guy. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

pensive1, 2009-05-24 06:02 pm UTC

espanolbot, 2009-05-24 06:03 pm UTC

pensive1, 2009-05-24 06:05 pm UTC

espanolbot, 2009-05-24 06:08 pm UTC

pensive1, 2009-05-24 06:13 pm UTC

espanolbot, 2009-05-24 06:14 pm UTC

stig, 2009-05-24 06:15 pm UTC

icon_uk, 2009-05-24 06:19 pm UTC

	fungo_squiggly 2009-05-24 06:00 pm UTC (link)
	I kind of liked what I saw in the trailer, but at the same time it left me a little wary. I just hope Holmes spends a lot more time doing detective things than jumping out of windows and kicking ass. (Reply to this)

colonel_green
2009-05-24 06:04 pm UTC (link)

Loved that issue of Planetary.

As to the trailer, looks interesting. When they cast Jude Law I knew we'd be getting a more useful Watson than is often the case.

RDJ as Holmes (of the more idiosyncratic variety) works pretty well, though I've always imagined even that Holmes as being a bit more meticulous about his appearance than Downey-Holmes appears to be. Whatever.

Also, Rachel McAdams = Teh Sex.

(Reply to this)

	stig 2009-05-24 06:10 pm UTC (link)
	OH GOD I JUST REALIZED REEVES AS DR. JEKYLL. SOMEONE FIND ME A BUCKET I NEED TO DETERMINE WHETHER I MERELY WANT TO VOMIT OR WHETHER MY INTESTINES WISH TO CRAWL AWAY AS FAST AS POSSIBLE. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	espanolbot 2009-05-24 06:13 pm UTC (link)
	I felt inclined to provide an alternative to RDJ, who I think is a superb actor. As in, there's always something worse. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

stig, 2009-05-24 06:18 pm UTC

icon_uk
2009-05-24 06:24 pm UTC (link)

As I said when I saw that trailer the first time, this isn't Holmes, it's "Wild, Wild West goes to London", and by that I mean the shitty Will Smith movie version.

This just looks awful IMHO, and completely misses the point of Holmes. Holmes was not smug or louche in this way, and was an English gentleman from the Victorian age, despite his social shortcomings, and his discussion with the maid was completely anachronous.

There's a great movie to be made out of Holmes, a character who has appeared in more films than any other character in history IIRC, but there's no need to embrace the Hollywood summer movie scholckbuster approach like THIS.

Jeremy Brett Holmes on DVD here I come...

(Reply to this) (Thread)

	leikomgwtfbbq 2009-05-24 07:31 pm UTC (link)
	Brett!Holmes is my favorite of them all. They're reairing them on my local PBS station, and I'm making sure to catch them all. ♥ Even if I have to stay up till stupid-o-clock in the morning to see them. (Reply to this) (Parent)

lonewolf23k
2009-05-24 06:52 pm UTC (link)

Folks, if the trailer bothers you, keep in mind this old trope... Never Trust a Trailer. Obviously, the trailer is emphasizing the "Cool Action Hero" elements to get the attention of the average movie-goer, but that doesn't necessarily mean the movie itself will focus on the action elements.

How many of us here have seen movie trailers that turned out NOT to be an accurate portrayal of the movie's actual contents?

(Reply to this) (Thread)

	icon_uk 2009-05-24 07:22 pm UTC (link)
	It's not the fact it HAS action elements that are my issue, it's how the action elements are depicted vis-a-vis Sherlock Holmes. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

darklorelei, 2009-05-24 07:39 pm UTC

box_in_the_box
2009-05-24 07:00 pm UTC (link)

Warren Ellis will make a rather curious, confusing case for literary scholars of the future.

On the one hand, he's very well-versed in past literary tropes, and displays more than an occasional affinity for them. On the other, his work contains a pervasive theme about the need to outgrow those old tropes and move forward, to evolve both as a species and as an audience.

I don't see this as a hypocrisy; rather, I see this as a very sensible synthesis, in that it represents a commitment to remaining aware of the past, and trying to perpetuate its better aspects, while at the same time ensuring that the doors toward future possibilities remain open.

Where it falls down, for me at least, is that Ellis doesn't seem to realize how many tropes of his own he's trapped by - to be fair, he's come close at times, most notably in the Planetary issue that placed the entire DC Vertigo line in its proper cultural context, as an embodiment of UK '80s zeitgeist - but he's never really managed to achieve escape velocity. Thus, for all of his talk of "meeting the future head-on," his ideas about the future remain almost exclusively drawn from 2000 A.D., Heavy Metal, William Gibson and Hunter S. Thompson.

If anything, Warren Ellis is for the Angry Future of the turn of the millennium what Gene Roddenberry was for the Hopeful Future of the mid-20th century - they both started out marginally progressive, relative to the standards of their respective eras, but they've both become representatives of Nostalgia For The Future Of The Past.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

rab62, 2009-05-24 08:41 pm UTC

box_in_the_box, 2009-05-24 08:42 pm UTC

filbypott, 2009-05-24 09:47 pm UTC

leikomgwtfbbq
2009-05-24 07:29 pm UTC (link)

Like I said in an earlier post: I quite like Mr Downey, and think he's a great actor, but his Holmes seems to be too energetic and enthusiastic. And he was eyeing that lady quite lasciviously. I'm used to a more reserved (not to mention nigh-asexual) Holmes.

Nevertheless, I'll probably see it anyway, because I love Holmes and will see or read anything with Sherlock Holmes in it, even if he just pops up for a couple of pages or a couple of minutes and disappears. I'm that much of a silly fangirl. XD

(Reply to this) (Thread)

merseybeatler, 2009-05-24 08:02 pm UTC

leikomgwtfbbq, 2009-05-24 08:48 pm UTC

filbypott, 2009-05-24 09:51 pm UTC

leikomgwtfbbq, 2009-05-24 10:46 pm UTC

filbypott, 2009-05-24 11:04 pm UTC

leikomgwtfbbq, 2009-05-25 12:14 am UTC

kagome654, 2009-05-25 08:06 am UTC

espanolbot, 2009-05-25 08:09 am UTC

	starwolf_oakley 2009-05-25 11:21 pm UTC (link)
	I haven't read a Holmes story or seen one of the movies in a while, but it seems to me Holmes was just shy around women... and everyone else. Irene Adler only bugged him because she outsmarted him. One story mentioned that Holmes put stock in "feminine intuition." Jeremy Brett's Holmes once rather sadly commented to Watson how "I have never loved." (Reply to this)

	sailorlibra 2009-05-26 12:07 am UTC (link)
	Well, no one can compare to Basil Rathbone... But this looks like it has the potential to be a good movie, just not necessarily a good Holmes movie. (Reply to this)