Dear Guy Ritchie: Please Die in a Fire.

[Vendetta]

I mean seriously, what the HELL is this shit?

Sherlock Holmes as reimagined (read as: shat upon) Guy Ritchie (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4K3aM5H5KM)

Seriously, the UK should disown this man. Also, the way I hear it, Conan Doyle's grave could power a small city right now.

EDIT: And I don't care that Bartitsu is a real thing, it still looks like crap.

[Chriz]

I don't mind them Hollywoodizing it, but can we PLEASE get past the uber slowmo stuff? That was boring by the end of the first Matrix.

[MorganaFang]

I'm basically treating this like a cartoon version.

I mean it really doesn't look as bad as Wild Wild West.

[a Fire in London]

I'm basically treating this like a cartoon version.

I mean it really doesn't look as bad as Wild Wild West.

Does anything look as bad as Wild Wild West?

This post should have been posted after Swepted Away but before RocknRolla.

[McKitty]

Eh, I'm fine with adaptation changes so long as the movie itself is good. It's like the Harry Potter books/movies. If it's good on it's own merits, I'll not fuss so much.

[Wolf-Bone]

Anyone who gives two shits about movies: Gee, I dunno about all these remakes. I mean shouldn't we be trying to tell new stories with new ideas?

Retarded producers: No no no they're reimaginings LOLZORZ

Ok, this trailer was only like what, 3 minutes long? I think I bothered watching like the first 45 seconds. Check this shit out. The dude playing Sherlock says... Oh hold up I forgot *goes to check again* Ok when he says "There isn't any time to waste then, innit". And he's smoking a pipe. When I'm smoking a puffin' "pipe" I have the same eyes/facial expression and speak in about the same tone. Somehow I don't think this is a good sign. I'd bet my left nut and the bottom half of this colt 45 I'm drinking that when he throws that punch in slow-mo - oh I'm sorry, I mean bullet-scratch that-, PUNCH-time, that bicep ripple is CG.

I'm writing a story too. Oh yes. The basic plot is already all laid out and everything. It's one of those serious, might-as-well-take-place-in-an-alternate-reality type of stories that tries to have striking parallels with our own reality. I have dreams of it getting big enough that when the sequels come out, which I've planned in advance instead of hashing out at the last minute, I can go on Larry King to explain why it really is the best thing since sliced bread instead of having to do pre-emptive damage control because it's financial/critical failure is anticipated by moviegoers/critics/the people funding the damn thing.

Oh, but that's not all. Like most stories of its type, mine has that slight-satirical bent (think Robocop, pretty much any zombie apocalypse - oh I'm sorry, some of them are infected humans apocalypses now). So in keeping with that spirit, I'm already thinking up a reimagining. But none of the characters really have anything in common with the characters they're supposed to be based on and the world they inhabit only bears a passing resemblance to the one the story is supposed to take place in. Really, the name is the only thing they have in common, and shit, I might even change that but give it a name that says "this is supposed to be this story, but not really".

Truth be told, yeah, I liked some "reimaginings". I mean, that's essentially what Diary of the Dead was, but you wouldn't know it if it didn't have George Romero's name on it and he didn't say as much before its release. The fact it's something "of the dead" wouldn't be enough because lots of completely unrelated movies have that as a title. Of course this new Batman franchies rocks, but ever since the first one came out I've been looking at them as sort've taking the Tim Burton Batmans' overall idea to its logical conclusion, which (go figure) was to have the characters we're supposed to empathize with just have good intentions and the bad guys be human, but a type of human you can't even relate to let alone empathize with (btw, Tim Burton's initial concept (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/89/Burtonjoke.jpg) of The Joker wasn't that far off from Heath Ledger's if you ask me). And say what you want about Cloverfield, but it was sure as hell a better attempt at a western Godzilla than, uh, Godzilla... You know, the one with P Diddy on the soundtrack? Yeah, I just reminded you. You're welcome!

I still haven't decide what I really think about Star Trek. I can't decide if, given the explanation it's a real reimagining or just the first time-travel episode where time travel left the kind of indelible mark on the timeline it ought to.

I just don't get it. We have a true reimaging of Sherlock Holmes. It's brilliant because Holmes is still Holmes. He's still brilliant, he's still a douche, he's still a drug addict, and he still has interchangeable sidekicks. He's the exact same person who just happens to have been transported to a completely different setting, time period and occupation, and he's also completely unaware that he's not Sherlock Holmes. It's called House.

[MorganaFang]

Dude, I never thought to associate House with Sherlock Holmes. That's really astute.

I keep watching this preview (Rubber Ducky Junior fantardness here) but I cannot stop myself from thinking about this: Sherlock Holmes in the 22nd Century (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nkn8n18yS7A)

Awhile ago Masterpiece theater/Mystery! did a really great fictionalized portrayal of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's inspiration for Holmes. Aside from a few of the old Holmes movies I love from my childhood for camp/sentimental value I think that has to be my favorite "take" on the story. This new movie is not going to change that. Nor is it going to change my love for the books.

That being said, it does look fun. Ridiculously gimmicky of course and I agree Guy Richie is an awful director. Plot and characters don't look that bad though.

HOWEVER, I will add I thought that when I saw the first few glimpses of Wolverine and that one totally got me back in the nuts so I don't know.

I'm willing to see it, don't wanna pay for a ticket unless matinee price but I could seriously stand to turn off my brain and just eat popcorn mindlessly for a couple of hours.

[Vendetta]

I keep watching this preview (Rubber Ducky Junior fantardness here) but I cannot stop myself from thinking about this: Sherlock Holmes in the 22nd Century (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nkn8n18yS7A)
Man, that is actually a pretty good concept, although I admit I'd rather have seen a Japanese adaptation of it.

Awhile ago Masterpiece theater/Mystery! did a really great fictionalized portrayal of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's inspiration for Holmes. Aside from a few of the old Holmes movies I love from my childhood for camp/sentimental value I think that has to be my favorite "take" on the story. This new movie is not going to change that. Nor is it going to change my love for the books.
Are you referring to the Jeremy Brett series? That was, by far, one of the best portrayals of Holmes on TV or in film. Just a step above Basil Rathbone, IMO.

And yes of course this will not stop me from liking the books or films/TV series in the least. However, I really do not understand the NEED for this. Why take a cerebral character and suddenly turn him into an action hero. I mean I've seen plenty of good alternate takes on Holmes, The Seven-Per-Cent Solution being one of the best. This, however, does NOT look good.

The root of the problem is, I think, the mainstream film industry's inability to come up with original material these days. It seems that for every one original screenplay, there are ten "adaptations" of books, comics, older films or sometimes just articles that appeared in a magazine. Don't get me wrong though, I'm not saying adaptations are wrong or can't be good films. But to make (or remake) something, just to turn it into a glossy Hollywood action flick seems pretty vapid to me.

I mean why not write an original steampunk action film? It probably wouldn't be too different from this.

[Chriz]

I don't mind remakes if they're done right. The new Battlestar Galactica -- at least at first -- improved over both the original and the genre itself in numerous ways. The new James Bond films are good (well, Casino Royale is good, I haven't seen Quantum of Solace yet). And of course, most of us love the new Batman films.

My main beef with remakes is that it's usually clear the person remaking it has no clue what made the original interesting (and therefore remake-worthy). Burton's Planet of the Apes is a good example. But it's not the concept of the remake as a whole, it's the execution of specific remakes.

As for "coming up with new stories," surely you understand why the remake/reboot/"reimagining" is the way to go. Back in the day (meaning, pre-80s), movies were relatively cheap things to make. Big blockbuster movies were being cranked out for less than $10 million, and even accounting for inflation, that's much less than what they cost today. The amount of a studio's financial risk tied up in any one movie was much smaller, so they could take more chances.

Movies have gotten too big for their own good. They're so expensive now that they represent a massive risk to a studio, and so the studio is under pressure to revisit successful franchises from the past. They've largely ceased to be a source of cultural creation and are in the process of transitioning over to Old Guard gatekeepers of culture. They've become parasitic, remaking old movies and TV shows. It blew me away to read that a remake of Robocop is in the works (but then I realized that movie is over 20 years old, so I guess it's about the right time).

About ten years ago I predicted the downfall of the modern cinema experience. It's happening, if not as quickly as I predicted. I'll reset my prediction and say that ten years from now, movie theaters will be as rare as drive-ins.

[Klark]

About ten years ago I predicted the downfall of the modern cinema experience. It's happening, if not as quickly as I predicted. I'll reset my prediction and say that ten years from now, movie theaters will be as rare as drive-ins.

I don't know about that. I do agree that the movie industry as we know it has gotten itself perched on a ledge, and ultimately I expect it to collapse. However, I do believe that after that collapse, we'll begin to see it re-emerge with new stories, new ideas and I expect it won't be the monster it's become. It'll reset, like the economy.

I'm a person who watches a film on it's own merit, regardless of whether it's a remake, adaptation or unique idea. I agree there are techniques in the movie industry that have been abused to the point that seeing them is the equivalent to dancing the Macarena. However, I will judge this expectant piece of crap when I see it. I've learned that trailers can be overly optimistic in it's presentment of the overall enjoyability of the film. And if I don't like the trailer...well, it doesn't bode well for the film.

[Chriz]

I don't know about that. I do agree that the movie industry as we know it has gotten itself perched on a ledge, and ultimately I expect it to collapse. However, I do believe that after that collapse, we'll begin to see it re-emerge with new stories, new ideas and I expect it won't be the monster it's become. It'll reset, like the economy.

I'm not saying movies themselves will go away. I'm taking about the structure of the industry itself. It's not really sustainable.

Theater revenues have been dropping steadily year after year for a decade now. While individual movies continue to break trends in terms of gross dollars coming in, fewer of them do each year and you have to consider the increase in ticket costs, plus the wider distribution that "summer hit" movies get. In terms of tickets per screen, movies are on the decline.

I can't remember the last time I saw a movie during its opening weekend where the place was packed. It would have to have been at least ten years ago. That's at least partly because the big event movies now get shown on four or five screens in the same theater, simultaneously. That might be good for that specific movie, but it's bad for the industry as a whole.

[Wolf-Bone]

Call it a "downfall" of an "experience" if you want. I prefer to call it what it is, which is basing every creative decision and expenditure on the premise that anyone with less money and a greater need to be entertained than you is somehow an idiot who needs to be told what to like, and even then only complicit when what they're told to like is computable in their brains which are about on par with that of the earliest reptiles.

At least if it's happening, it's happening in "the digital age". How much does a movie cost to make when the people making it aren't demanding a guaranteed bare-minimum return in the eight or nine digit range? Uh, about the cost of the equipment, permits and the people getting paid fifty bucks a piece to be extras, minus those eight or nine digits. It's common sense!

There is no shortage of the following:

-Talent who want to perform, who actually have talent.
-Writers who want to write.
-Artists who want to create.
-Increasingly cheap (or even free) equipment and software that does just about anything Adobe, Microsoft and Autodesk can do, minus the astronomical costs and gigabyte-sized baggage attached.
-People who want to see something different for a fucking change and are willing to pay for it.

Now, on the one hand, none of these people are willing to do it entirely for free, but at the same time, putting their work/name out there is more important to them than their sense of entitlement to a Patrician lifestyle. That is, if they have one. Most don't.

Rome might've suffered a "downfall", but it was more a series of small invasions and the Ancien Régime seeing the writing on the wall and handing over the reigns of power, one barbarian tribe at a time. Right now, we're in the early stages of the "small invasion" phase. The "moviegoing experience" isn't going away, it's just moving to college campuses and peoples living rooms, where people can watch the movies they want, with only the people they want to watch them with, and with snacks that actually cost a reasonable price. And some of those movies are just as good as anything Hollywood produce (arguably better), and Hollywood doesn't even know they exist - and therefor, won't see a dime from them.

Ironically, the true spirit of the studio system will live on in the same way that of the aforementioned Romans does - in bathhouses in San Fransisco. The art of film making, however, they don't own that, and never did.

[Chriz]

The "moviegoing experience" isn't going away, it's just moving to college campuses and peoples living rooms, where people can watch the movies they want, with only the people they want to watch them with, and with snacks that actually cost a reasonable price.

And technically, HAM radio hasn't gone away.

[Wolf-Bone]

And technically, HAM radio hasn't gone away.

What's your point? That getting ripped off, having your arteries clogged and being crammed together like sardines with people who are extremely obnoxious is "part of the experience?" Ok, enjoy your "experience". I'd rather enjoy a movie.

[Chriz]

What's your point? That getting ripped off, having your arteries clogged and being crammed together like sardines with people who are extremely obnoxious is "part of the experience?" Ok, enjoy your "experience". I'd rather enjoy a movie.

My point is that movies surviving by being relegated to dorm rooms (oh boy, you'll see me there soon!) and hidden, out of the way basement bars isn't really surviving.

[Klark]

What's your point? That getting ripped off, having your arteries clogged and being crammed together like sardines with people who are extremely obnoxious is "part of the experience?" Ok, enjoy your "experience". I'd rather enjoy a movie.

The "experience" as you put it, Bone, has been around since humans learned how to entertain other humans. Before there were movie theaters, there were playhouses and opera theaters.

Whether or not you like the experience isn't what the discussion was about. Some people don't like the "experience" of shopping in a mall, others can't stand Mom and Pop shops.

The point of this thread is that Guy Ritchie should die in a fire, and we've gotten away from that with talks of why he should die in a fire that further digressed. I would like to see this topic we've gotten onto explored further, but I'd like to see it in it's own thread.

[MorganaFang]

Are you referring to the Jeremy Brett series? That was, by far, one of the best portrayals of Holmes on TV or in film. Just a step above Basil Rathbone, IMO.


Jeremy Brett is definitely my favorite. What I was talking about was Murder Rooms - The Dark Beginnings of Sherlock Holmes. (http://www.amazon.com/Murder-Rooms-Beginnings-Sherlock-Holmes/dp/B000EXZFRG)

[Lore]

Jeremy Brett is definitely my favorite. What I was talking about was Murder Rooms - The Dark Beginnings of Sherlock Holmes. (http://www.amazon.com/Murder-Rooms-Beginnings-Sherlock-Holmes/dp/B000EXZFRG)

Jeremy Brett is my favorite too. Whenever I think of Sherlock Homes I think of his version of the character because it fits together so well.

[MorganaFang]

Jeremy Brett is my favorite too. Whenever I think of Sherlock Homes I think of his version of the character because it fits together so well.

I have friends who will always cringe when I say so because to them no one is Holmes like Rathbone or one other actor I can't remember. Admittedly though, I don't have much experience in watching those films even now I have not seen his Holmes.

Brett has this great personal association of on a rainy day hanging with my dad and watching Sherlock Holmes solve another Mystery on TV.

In my mind RDJ doesn't really fit the "look of Sherlock Holmes" but to be fair neither did Brett a lot of the time. I love his characters though. Maybe V, is right maybe they should not have latched onto the Holmes fandom and tried to just slightly "rip it off" while going with the Steam Punk themes.

[Shining Wolf]

Come on V, it has Robert Downey Jr. in it, can't be that bad.

[Vendetta]

I have friends who will always cringe when I say so because to them no one is Holmes like Rathbone or one other actor I can't remember. Admittedly though, I don't have much experience in watching those films even now I have not seen his Holmes.
Really? I mean obviously Rathbone is the classic, but I think Brett nailed, at least MY vision of Holmes.

In my mind RDJ doesn't really fit the "look of Sherlock Holmes" but to be fair neither did Brett a lot of the time. I love his characters though.
I mean don't get me wrong, it's not really the casting of Downey (Jr.) I have a problem with, as I think he can be a very fine actor (iron suits notwithstanding.)

Maybe V, is right maybe they should not have latched onto the Holmes fandom and tried to just slightly "rip it off" while going with the Steam Punk themes.
But see, this is my other issue: WHAT Holmes fandom? I mean I'm sure there are plenty of fans of Holmes, but are they the same people who will plunk $10+ for a action film? I'm not sure. I just think this is an incredibly misguided and wrongheaded approach.

And Chris I think you and I are in almost 100% agreement about the death of movie theaters. I really do wish it HAD happened sooner.

And Bone...
There is no shortage of the following:

-Talent who want to perform, who actually have talent.
-Writers who want to write.
-Artists who want to create.
-Increasingly cheap (or even free) equipment and software that does just about anything Adobe, Microsoft and Autodesk can do, minus the astronomical costs and gigabyte-sized baggage attached.
-People who want to see something different for a fucking change and are willing to pay for it.
Please tell me WHERE these people are? And why aren't they producing things on a more massive scale (quantity-wise, not budgetarily) is they DO exist in such numbers?

[Wolf-Bone]

We're working on it, Vendetta. Despite haters like you hatin, we keep on keepin on. We could give a fuck less if your short attention span can't catch the ones that's already on the move or about your "I'll see it when I believe it" attitude. It ain't for you because we don't need or want your support.

[Klark]

We're working on it, Vendetta. Despite haters like you hatin, we keep on keepin on. We could give a fuck less if your short attention span can't catch the ones that's already on the move or about your "I'll see it when I believe it" attitude. It ain't for you because we don't need or want your support.

Talent demands to be recognized, writers demand to be read and artists demand to have their work shown. At what point do creators not want or need an audience's support? I certainly don't mean to come across as a "hater" but I know that my written works were written so they could be read. I created them to find an audience. Please note I said audience and not acceptance. Not all audiences will be accepting. Anyone who creates something without intentions of it finding an audience is either very selfish or is a person of low self-esteem. At least that's how I view it at this point in time.

[Wolf-Bone]

Talent demands to be recognized, writers demand to be read and artists demand to have their work shown. At what point do creators not want or need an audience's support? I certainly don't mean to come across as a "hater" but I know that my written works were written so they could be read. I created them to find an audience. Please note I said audience and not acceptance. Not all audiences will be accepting. Anyone who creates something without intentions of it finding an audience is either very selfish or is a person of low self-esteem. At least that's how I view it at this point in time.

It's also indickitif of low self-esteem and selfishness if you want everybody in the world to be your audience. It's also pretty unrealistic. What's more realistic and less assholish is to know your audience, target them, and, go figure, that usually results in commercial success (critical success is more of a mixed bag, but douchebags do tend to be mixed ones at that).

edit: at this time lol

[Chriz]

It's also indickitif of low self-esteem and selfishness if you want everybody in the world to be your audience. It's also pretty unrealistic.

Fortunately, then, that's not at all what Klark (or anyone in this thread that I can see) said.

[Klark]

It's also indickitif of low self-esteem and selfishness if you want everybody in the world to be your audience. It's also pretty unrealistic. What's more realistic and less assholish is to know your audience, target them, and, go figure, that usually results in commercial success (critical success is more of a mixed bag, but douchebags do tend to be mixed ones at that).

edit: at this time lol

And it appears Guy Ritchie is doing just that. He's targetting the "action-flick" lovers with a character not typically used in that genre. However, there are people who will not like the character being used in such a way. So if the flick sucks balls, he's an asshole to the action flick genre and an asshole to the classic Holmes lovers. If it's a success, it's because he hit his target audience with a fine film and he's still an asshole to classic Holmes lovers.

Doesn't change the fact some people believe he should die in a fire.

Oh yeah, back on topic. :D

[Chriz]

And it appears Guy Ritchie is doing just that. He's targetting the "action-flick" lovers with a character not typically used in that genre. However, there are people who will not like the character being used in such a way.

Stories are eternal, but styles need to live and grow. Holmes is dead unless he's updated. You're dead unless you update your tastes.

Which isn't to say one should accept all new and modern styling without criticism. A style can grow into crap, but hate it because it's crap, not because it grew.

No one said evolution wasn't messy.

[Wolf-Bone]

And it appears Guy Ritchie is doing just that. He's targetting the "action-flick" lovers with a character not typically used in that genre. However, there are people who will not like the character being used in such a way. So if the flick sucks balls, he's an asshole to the action flick genre and an asshole to the classic Holmes lovers. If it's a success, it's because he hit his target audience with a fine film and he's still an asshole to classic Holmes lovers.

Doesn't change the fact some people believe he should die in a fire.

Oh yeah, back on topic. :D

And he could avoid the whole mess by just not doing the damn thing and doing something else. There's only one really good way to make something old new, and that's to make something old, new. And like I said, we already got that, and it's House.

Now, can we argue about something maybe half worth arguing about for a damned change?

[Klark]

I agree with Chriz on this one. Holmes would be dead if not for growing, same as Star Trek.

House is a good example of ripping off an idea. Admittedly House is Holmes and Wilson is Winston, blah blah blah, but House will never achieve the longevity that Holmes has simply because tevevision has a shorter life span than books. I'm a huge fan of House, but I have realistic expectations that my grandchildren will have no idea who he is, yet they will more than likely know of Sherlock Holmes, even if it's because a new film is released 40 years from now that shows Holmes flying about a city with a jet pack on his ass. Who knows, they might want to pick up a book and find out about Holmes after watching.

[Wolf-Bone]

Holmes flying 'round jetpack ass

Oh, they already done that actually. Just you don't remember it because, like you pointed out, it was on TV and as such, lacked the necessary longevity. Also it was a cartoon which prolly doesn't help.

[Chriz]

And Chris I think you and I are in almost 100% agreement about the death of movie theaters. I really do wish it HAD happened sooner.

Here's a short list of SF movies that made big bucks prior to Star Wars (http://blogs.amctv.com/scifi-scanner/2009/05/scifi-blockbusters-before-star-wars.php). It's just a sampling, but when the numbers are adjusted for inflation we can see that big movie revenue is nothing new.

What is new (relatively speaking) are those big movie budgets.

[MorganaFang]

Lurker Lurking...

Has anyone else heard about Ritchie including "gay vibes" between Watson and Holmes? (http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/entertainment/guy-ritchie-to-portray-gay-relationship-between-sherlock-holmeswatson_100228058.html)

I'm kind of LOLing at the fox news person saying women will be turned off by it. I can think of over five ladies I know that will be all over this.