Holmes Knows Kung Fu, Dear Watson

[Mirai Gen]

I swear to god every time Downey knife-arm outside blocked in an English brawl room I had a little part of me die, but other than that, looked surprisingly good, in fact.

I'm just hoping to god that Holmes-Fu takes a backseat to the detective work he did in the first few minutes of the trailer.

I'm too lazy to dig out a link so, eh, you do it.

[TheSparrow]

You know, in the BOOKS, Sherlock Holmes was said to be familiar with the martial arts "bartitsu" which is a british martial arts. In the early U.S. editions was changed to "jujitsu".

[Mirai Gen]

Fair enough, but it's less of that and more "Let's action movie-ify one of the most famous detectives of all time."

Hey worked for Batman right?

[Aerozord]

though wasn't Holmes a pacifist by nature? Just because you can fight doesn't mean you don't avoid them as much as possible. But I wonder how america at large will handle Holmes. His stories often being about subtle detail and his particular reasoning and perceptive skills. Well L was well liked and its simular deductive logic, so hopefully.

But I'm one of those guys that would rather hear Holmes monologe about the train of logic he used to get his conclusion (reguardless of whether or not I figured it out already) then see an epic fight scene. Hope they dont take the easy route and cop-out by just having a third of the movie involve explosions and a tacted ok love story

[EVILNess]

I don't think he was really a pacifist. He was a hedonist.

[BitVyper]

though wasn't Holmes a pacifist by nature?

Didn't he die when he went over a cliff fighting with Moriarty?

[Preturbed]

Didn't he die when he went over a cliff fighting with Moriarty?

Once, yeah. He got better though.

[Megaman FTW]

Although I never knew Sherlock Holmes looked so much like Stark.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNPQjMBJCIU&feature=popular

[Magus]

Hopefully Americans just don't pay too much attention to his "deductive reasoning" as it is in most of the stories I've read entirely unbelievable. The things Holmes figures out based on the thinnest "clues" are ridiculous. Luckily the average Hollywood film has dozens of plot holes and unbelievable jumps in reasoning for characters so it will probably not stand out.

L in Death Note was cool and all but his ability to figure things out doesn't really stand up to believability, especially since everything always works out for him on the first try, besides, such as the fake execution broadcast at the beginning. I for one think that L's "reasoning" would be one of the weaker parts of the anime, not the stronger.

What would really surprise me is if the mystery in this movie is actually solved realistically and not with inane evidence such as "she had a bit of mud spattering the hem of her dress, thus it is obvious that she traveled to London via dogcart so as to avoid the notice of her scheming and evil uncle/stepfather!" This courtesy of the Mystery of the Speckled Band. Seriously, read it, and tell me I'm wrong. Not to mention the means of murder was so ridiculously convoluted it made an average CSI episode look tame, plus it's something that any coroner would've been able to pick up on right away regardless of what Doyle writes (it would be okay if it didn't stand up to advanced medical knowledge, but common sense would show it to be easily detectable by anyone who knew anything). Why this one is the most popular Holmes tale I'm not sure, but it's probably because it's fairly short, thus making it useful for High School classes, and it had a ridiculously convoluted means of murder backing it.

Anyway, I hope for this movie they pick one of the more believable Holmes tales and remove any of the ridiculous "reasoning" that Holmes does and replace it with something that could actually lead one to a conclusion.

Also Holmes seems to be being shown as the ladies man in this movie, whereas in the stories it is Watson who is the ladies man, with Holmes being rather asexual in point of fact.

[Magic_Marker]

That's the one with the snake right?

[phil_]

But I wonder how america at large will handle Holmes.... Well L was well liked and its simular deductive logic, so hopefully.L's popularity is more based on being pretty so fangirls could draw him and Light having sweaty, sparkly man-sex making out than on his deductive skills.

[krogothwolf]

I wonder if they'll tie in his drug addiction

[Seil]

ridiculously convoluted it made an average CSI episode look tame

Hey now, CSI is fun to watch, but it's pretty obvious fiction. Let's take a look, shall we?

CSI:LV - They find the killer under incredibly convenient circumstances
CSI:NY - They find the killer with a fancy, expensive tech
CSI:M - David Caruso.

[Aerozord]

Hopefully Americans just don't pay too much attention to his "deductive reasoning" as it is in most of the stories I've read entirely unbelievable. The things Holmes figures out based on the thinnest "clues" are ridiculous. Luckily the average Hollywood film has dozens of plot holes and unbelievable jumps in reasoning for characters so it will probably not stand out.

L in Death Note was cool and all but his ability to figure things out doesn't really stand up to believability, especially since everything always works out for him on the first try, besides, such as the fake execution broadcast at the beginning. I for one think that L's "reasoning" would be one of the weaker parts of the anime, not the stronger.



really? always made sense to me and seemed to be reasonable conclusions. You make note of the available informetion, calculate the likelihood of possible explainations and come to a conclusion based on the most likely answer. Both characters however had to force information to the surface, thus needing to gamble and take shot in the dark guesses.

To note your example of L. As he explained he cast his net over the widest area since the chances of the killer being there was highest. If it was going to work the first time that would be his best bet, plus its not like things would have been different when he made subsequent attempts. I personally would have had multiple people do simultaneous broadcasts to eliminate the chance of information leak. Doing this would then greatly reduce his possible suspects. I really dont see the problem with this reasoning

[BitVyper]

Hey now, CSI is fun to watch, but it's pretty obvious fiction. Let's take a look, shall we?

CSI:LV - They find the killer under incredibly convenient circumstances
CSI:NY - They find the killer with a fancy, expensive tech
CSI:M - David Caruso.

Sounds like *puts on shades* a triple threat.


YEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAH!

[krogothwolf]

Sounds like *puts on shades* a triple threat.


YEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAH!

*Puts on deerstalker hat*

That's an Elementary deduction there Watson

[phil_]

*Puts on deerstalker hat*

That's an Elementary deduction there Watsonhttp://slog.thestranger.com/files/2007/06/cute-sad-kitten02.jpg

And by that, I mean this is a bad post and it fills me with sadness.

[Magus]

really? always made sense to me and seemed to be reasonable conclusions. You make note of the available informetion, calculate the likelihood of possible explainations and come to a conclusion based on the most likely answer. Both characters however had to force information to the surface, thus needing to gamble and take shot in the dark guesses.

To note your example of L. As he explained he cast his net over the widest area since the chances of the killer being there was highest. If it was going to work the first time that would be his best bet, plus its not like things would have been different when he made subsequent attempts. I personally would have had multiple people do simultaneous broadcasts to eliminate the chance of information leak. Doing this would then greatly reduce his possible suspects. I really dont see the problem with this reasoning

Actually L would be the Sherlock Holmes trope done correctly because despite the plot device of him always being right the first time he himself always keeps in mind that he may be wrong and as the series went on we see that he is not infallible (although this may be only because he doesn't believe he is infallible, thus I'm not sure if it's a broken Aesop or what. But it did make him likable).

Holmes on the other hand is never wrong ever, and the clues are always far flimsier than what occurs in Death Note, with extrapolations about people and motives that nobody could ever figure out from the evidence Holmes obtains. They recently remade Sherlock Holmes for prime-time television and took it to its logical extreme--it's called The Mentalist, and it's quite hilarious.

[R|Я]

L in Death Note was cool and all but his ability to figure things out doesn't really stand up to believability, especially since everything always works out for him on the first try, besides, such as the fake execution broadcast at the beginning. I'm pretty sure that L Lawliet wasn't actually a prisoner on death row, but somebody they just pulled off the street and told to read a few lines. XD

On topic, eeeeeeeehhhhhhhh. I always loved Holmes (especially after I realized most of his "deductions" were hopeful at best), and the HUGE melancholy aura surrounding him (how many other heroes do you know of that get down on cocaine that regularly?). Downey just looks a bit too excited for me.

[Sithdarth]

Hopefully Americans just don't pay too much attention to his "deductive reasoning" as it is in most of the stories I've read entirely unbelievable. The things Holmes figures out based on the thinnest "clues" are ridiculous. Luckily the average Hollywood film has dozens of plot holes and unbelievable jumps in reasoning for characters so it will probably not stand out.

Somebody doesn't understand suspension of disbelief. Holmes is like the drama equivalent of an action movie. Everything has to be blown stupidly out of proportion to distract the audience from the ludicrousness of the story itself. If you're going to go big you have to go so big no one can see anything else.

[synkr0nized]

So when I saw this trailer the reason I want to see it is basically just because Watson punches Holmes in the face. Terrific.

[R|Я]

So when I saw this trailer the reason I want to see it is basically just because Watson punches Holmes in the face. Terrific. Yeah, if there was one thing the books lacked, it was Watson not putting up with Holmes' shit. I like.

[BitVyper]

Somebody doesn't understand suspension of disbelief. Holmes is like the drama equivalent of an action movie. Everything has to be blown stupidly out of proportion to distract the audience from the ludicrousness of the story itself. If you're going to go big you have to go so big no one can see anything else.

I'd just like to say that I think Death Note did a poor job of this, since DN was mentioned. I didn't mind L so much, but Light never really lived up to his hype for me. He mostly seemed like an arrogant little shit who had script immunity, as opposed to the series' evil chessmaster.

It especially pissed me off how they handled that that ex-FBI agent chick in volume 2.

[Aerozord]

I'd just like to say that I think Death Note did a poor job of this, since DN was mentioned. I didn't mind L so much, but Light never really lived up to his hype for me. He mostly seemed like an arrogant little shit who had script immunity, as opposed to the series' evil chessmaster.


this is why when L died alot of people lose interest.

But back to suspension of disbelief. As was said, Holmes is basically a mystery genre's version of a Badass, People do not read the books to see him fail, they read them to see him kick some esoteric ass. Though you can always look at it like this. They never made books about when he fails. Dont think it ever said he was always right, but he was meant to seem that way. From a writing standpoint thats what he was going for, and thats what people remember Holmes for. From Holmes standpoint appearing to be infaliable is far better for his work, every possibility he failed alot, and just never mentioned it since, well he tries to seem flawless in his reasoning. Or maybe he just has a massive ego and actually believe that.

[Magic_Marker]

this is why when L died alot of people lose interest.

But back to suspension of disbelief. As was said, Holmes is basically a mystery genre's version of a Badass, People do not read the books to see him fail, they read them to see him kick some esoteric ass. Though you can always look at it like this. They never made books about when he fails. Dont think it ever said he was always right, but he was meant to seem that way. From a writing standpoint thats what he was going for, and thats what people remember Holmes for. From Holmes standpoint appearing to be infaliable is far better for his work, every possibility he failed alot, and just never mentioned it since, well he tries to seem flawless in his reasoning. Or maybe he just has a massive ego and actually believe that.


Holmes did have a massive ego, but he did lose more than once in the series, and he references some losses "off screen" in a couple of Doyle's stories.

[R|Я]

It should also be noted that 9 times out of 10, a victory in any of the given Holmes stories would be more interesting to read than if he failed them because "sorry Sherlock, but quite frankly, you're full of shit."

[Magic_Marker]

Not to mention the fact that Realism!=Best.

If there was realism only literature, we'd no ttgl, lotr, Alice in Wonderland et al.

[Magus]

You're confusing fantastical elements for fantastical (unrealistic) solutions. Let's take LOTR for example: Sam and Frodo go through hell to get the ring to Mordor, Sam thinks Frodo is dead and accidentally lets him get captured, they barely escape with their lives, they end up almost dead by the time they get to the volcano, and then, when the day is about to save, Frodo finally succumbs to the ring's curse! The day is actually saved by Gollum, in a quite unexpected manner, which had been foreshadowed way at the beginning of the saga.

Compare this with how the plot unravels in Sherlock Holmes stories and you'll see why detective and mystery novels evolved into plots where the detective is uncertain who the real killer is until the very end--and is usually surprised by who it is. Not to mention an increasing use of research and common sense in writing--no critic of today would let Doyle off easy for the infallible Sherlock Holmes and the overlooking of such obvious causes of death as snake bite, which in real life causes swelling and bruising at the site of the bite but which Doyle expects us to believe can be overlooked by a coroner. Perhaps if he had set it up that the coroner was 90 years old and half-drunk at the time of the autopsy, but Doyle didn't do this, which shows his shoddy writing ability--by today's standards, anyway. Obviously, in the 19th century, he was quite a bit more revolutionary, but then again, I've read better written stuff from the same time period, so he isn't completely invincible even in context.