Re: [scifinoir2] What if Actors' Roles were Switched in Sherlock Holmes?
It worked for Batman. On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 10:20 PM, Keith Johnson keithbjohn...@comcast.netwrote: I disagree that stoic won't play to modern audiences, but that's a convo for another day. I already ranted about my frustration with all this modern audiences won't talk earlier. Either way, my main questions really are based on how true to the source material Ritchie's film was. I had a good time at the film, could watch it again, and look forward to a sequel. - Original Message - From: Omari Confer clockwork...@gmail.com To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, January 31, 2010 1:03:47 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] What if Actors' Roles were Switched in Sherlock Holmes? Stoic wont play to modern audiences in the way they wanted. Unless your making a Merchat Ivory filmcomplicated is the way to go. The protag needs to be vulnerable and unstoppable.Downy is perfect. On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 10:41 AM, Keith Johnson keithbjohn...@comcast.net wrote: But back to my point, is Holmes in the books as emotionally complicated as Downey's portrayal? The movies I've seen all have Holmes are more stoic than Downey. Not a Vulcan or anything, but more controlled. So, do you think Law in the role would have dictated a less demonstrative Holmes? - Original Message - From: Omari Confer clockwork...@gmail.com To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, January 30, 2010 3:03:59 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] What if Actors' Roles were Switched in Sherlock Holmes? Law doesnt have the emotional depth to pull off Sherlock. Plain and simple. On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 12:14 AM, Keith Johnson keithbjohn...@comcast.net wrote: After seeing the movie last Sunday, I was wondering about the casting. Downey and Law are really good, but why did Ritchie cast them that way? Law, who's taller, a bit leaner, and has a bit more of an intensely thoughtful look, would seem at first glance to be the natural choice to play Holmes. At least, he probably on the surface appears closer to the tall, lean, serious Holmes of all those movies i saw as a kid. Downey, with his shorter stature, lined, worn face, large expressive eyes, and tendency to look comical, serious,and slightly off all at once, would seem to be a good fit for a slightly comedic Watson--the guy who comments/critiques/jokes from the sidelines as the oh-so-serious Holmes goes about solving the crimes. Indeed, i can see a time before Downey's return to such lofty heights, where another director would probably think it natural to cast the dapper and handsome Law as Holmes, and the quixotic Downey as his funny sidekick. Wonder how such a movie would have turned out? Would the casting have dictated a more traditional take on the characters? Would Rithie's slight twist on the traditional movie treatments of the characters still have worked if the roles had been switched? -- READ MY BLOG http://centralheatingblog.blogspot.com STRING THEORY http://stringtheory.podbean.com -- READ MY BLOG http://centralheatingblog.blogspot.com STRING THEORY http://stringtheory.podbean.com -- Celebrating 10 years of bringing diversity to perversity! Mahogany at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mahogany_pleasures_of_darkness/
RE: [scifinoir2] What if Actors' Roles were Switched in Sherlock Holmes?
More than welcome! And it's the same for me. The last pieces of Holmesiana I've touched are the stories written around the character, including a series of novels written by Laurie King, which posit Holmes as, of all things, a married man, and his wife his intellectual equal. http://www.rj-anderson.com/russell/ _ Hotmail: Powerful Free email with security by Microsoft. http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/196390710/direct/01/
Re: [scifinoir2] What if Actors' Roles were Switched in Sherlock Holmes?
Law doesnt have the emotional depth to pull off Sherlock. Plain and simple. On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 12:14 AM, Keith Johnson keithbjohn...@comcast.netwrote: After seeing the movie last Sunday, I was wondering about the casting. Downey and Law are really good, but why did Ritchie cast them that way? Law, who's taller, a bit leaner, and has a bit more of an intensely thoughtful look, would seem at first glance to be the natural choice to play Holmes. At least, he probably on the surface appears closer to the tall, lean, serious Holmes of all those movies i saw as a kid. Downey, with his shorter stature, lined, worn face, large expressive eyes, and tendency to look comical, serious,and slightly off all at once, would seem to be a good fit for a slightly comedic Watson--the guy who comments/critiques/jokes from the sidelines as the oh-so-serious Holmes goes about solving the crimes. Indeed, i can see a time before Downey's return to such lofty heights, where another director would probably think it natural to cast the dapper and handsome Law as Holmes, and the quixotic Downey as his funny sidekick. Wonder how such a movie would have turned out? Would the casting have dictated a more traditional take on the characters? Would Rithie's slight twist on the traditional movie treatments of the characters still have worked if the roles had been switched? -- READ MY BLOG http://centralheatingblog.blogspot.com STRING THEORY http://stringtheory.podbean.com
Re: [scifinoir2] What if Actors' Roles were Switched in Sherlock Holmes?
I agree. It would have been completely different. There is something quirky about Downey that makes it work. That X factor thing. I wonder if Johnny Depp would have worked in the role? On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 12:03 AM, Omari Confer clockwork...@gmail.comwrote: Law doesnt have the emotional depth to pull off Sherlock. Plain and simple. On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 12:14 AM, Keith Johnson keithbjohn...@comcast.net wrote: After seeing the movie last Sunday, I was wondering about the casting. Downey and Law are really good, but why did Ritchie cast them that way? Law, who's taller, a bit leaner, and has a bit more of an intensely thoughtful look, would seem at first glance to be the natural choice to play Holmes. At least, he probably on the surface appears closer to the tall, lean, serious Holmes of all those movies i saw as a kid. Downey, with his shorter stature, lined, worn face, large expressive eyes, and tendency to look comical, serious,and slightly off all at once, would seem to be a good fit for a slightly comedic Watson--the guy who comments/critiques/jokes from the sidelines as the oh-so-serious Holmes goes about solving the crimes. Indeed, i can see a time before Downey's return to such lofty heights, where another director would probably think it natural to cast the dapper and handsome Law as Holmes, and the quixotic Downey as his funny sidekick. Wonder how such a movie would have turned out? Would the casting have dictated a more traditional take on the characters? Would Rithie's slight twist on the traditional movie treatments of the characters still have worked if the roles had been switched? -- READ MY BLOG http://centralheatingblog.blogspot.com STRING THEORY http://stringtheory.podbean.com -- Celebrating 10 years of bringing diversity to perversity! Mahogany at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mahogany_pleasures_of_darkness/
Re: [scifinoir2] What if Actors' Roles were Switched in Sherlock Holmes?
Dep would not work in guy ritchie's version but i can see him in some other incarnation. On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 2:13 AM, Mr. Worf hellomahog...@gmail.com wrote: I agree. It would have been completely different. There is something quirky about Downey that makes it work. That X factor thing. I wonder if Johnny Depp would have worked in the role? On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 12:03 AM, Omari Confer clockwork...@gmail.comwrote: Law doesnt have the emotional depth to pull off Sherlock. Plain and simple. On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 12:14 AM, Keith Johnson keithbjohn...@comcast.net wrote: After seeing the movie last Sunday, I was wondering about the casting. Downey and Law are really good, but why did Ritchie cast them that way? Law, who's taller, a bit leaner, and has a bit more of an intensely thoughtful look, would seem at first glance to be the natural choice to play Holmes. At least, he probably on the surface appears closer to the tall, lean, serious Holmes of all those movies i saw as a kid. Downey, with his shorter stature, lined, worn face, large expressive eyes, and tendency to look comical, serious,and slightly off all at once, would seem to be a good fit for a slightly comedic Watson--the guy who comments/critiques/jokes from the sidelines as the oh-so-serious Holmes goes about solving the crimes. Indeed, i can see a time before Downey's return to such lofty heights, where another director would probably think it natural to cast the dapper and handsome Law as Holmes, and the quixotic Downey as his funny sidekick. Wonder how such a movie would have turned out? Would the casting have dictated a more traditional take on the characters? Would Rithie's slight twist on the traditional movie treatments of the characters still have worked if the roles had been switched? -- READ MY BLOG http://centralheatingblog.blogspot.com STRING THEORY http://stringtheory.podbean.com -- Celebrating 10 years of bringing diversity to perversity! Mahogany at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mahogany_pleasures_of_darkness/ -- READ MY BLOG http://centralheatingblog.blogspot.com STRING THEORY http://stringtheory.podbean.com
Re: [scifinoir2] What if Actors' Roles were Switched in Sherlock Holmes?
It was just one of those What if? questions. Just thought I might add a little whimsy into the conversation. :) Sort of like thinking about a Black Han Solo. On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 12:15 AM, Omari Confer clockwork...@gmail.comwrote: Dep would not work in guy ritchie's version but i can see him in some other incarnation. On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 2:13 AM, Mr. Worf hellomahog...@gmail.com wrote: I agree. It would have been completely different. There is something quirky about Downey that makes it work. That X factor thing. I wonder if Johnny Depp would have worked in the role? On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 12:03 AM, Omari Confer clockwork...@gmail.comwrote: Law doesnt have the emotional depth to pull off Sherlock. Plain and simple. On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 12:14 AM, Keith Johnson keithbjohn...@comcast.net wrote: After seeing the movie last Sunday, I was wondering about the casting. Downey and Law are really good, but why did Ritchie cast them that way? Law, who's taller, a bit leaner, and has a bit more of an intensely thoughtful look, would seem at first glance to be the natural choice to play Holmes. At least, he probably on the surface appears closer to the tall, lean, serious Holmes of all those movies i saw as a kid. Downey, with his shorter stature, lined, worn face, large expressive eyes, and tendency to look comical, serious,and slightly off all at once, would seem to be a good fit for a slightly comedic Watson--the guy who comments/critiques/jokes from the sidelines as the oh-so-serious Holmes goes about solving the crimes. Indeed, i can see a time before Downey's return to such lofty heights, where another director would probably think it natural to cast the dapper and handsome Law as Holmes, and the quixotic Downey as his funny sidekick. Wonder how such a movie would have turned out? Would the casting have dictated a more traditional take on the characters? Would Rithie's slight twist on the traditional movie treatments of the characters still have worked if the roles had been switched? -- READ MY BLOG http://centralheatingblog.blogspot.com STRING THEORY http://stringtheory.podbean.com -- Celebrating 10 years of bringing diversity to perversity! Mahogany at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mahogany_pleasures_of_darkness/ -- READ MY BLOG http://centralheatingblog.blogspot.com STRING THEORY http://stringtheory.podbean.com -- Celebrating 10 years of bringing diversity to perversity! Mahogany at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mahogany_pleasures_of_darkness/
Re: [scifinoir2] What if Actors' Roles were Switched in Sherlock Holmes?
But back to my point, is Holmes in the books as emotionally complicated as Downey's portrayal? The movies I've seen all have Holmes are more stoic than Downey. Not a Vulcan or anything, but more controlled. So, do you think Law in the role would have dictated a less demonstrative Holmes? - Original Message - From: Omari Confer clockwork...@gmail.com To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, January 30, 2010 3:03:59 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] What if Actors' Roles were Switched in Sherlock Holmes? Law doesnt have the emotional depth to pull off Sherlock. Plain and simple. On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 12:14 AM, Keith Johnson keithbjohn...@comcast.net wrote: After seeing the movie last Sunday, I was wondering about the casting. Downey and Law are really good, but why did Ritchie cast them that way? Law, who's taller, a bit leaner, and has a bit more of an intensely thoughtful look, would seem at first glance to be the natural choice to play Holmes. At least, he probably on the surface appears closer to the tall, lean, serious Holmes of all those movies i saw as a kid. Downey, with his shorter stature, lined, worn face, large expressive eyes, and tendency to look comical, serious,and slightly off all at once, would seem to be a good fit for a slightly comedic Watson--the guy who comments/critiques/jokes from the sidelines as the oh-so-serious Holmes goes about solving the crimes. Indeed, i can see a time before Downey's return to such lofty heights, where another director would probably think it natural to cast the dapper and handsome Law as Holmes, and the quixotic Downey as his funny sidekick. Wonder how such a movie would have turned out? Would the casting have dictated a more traditional take on the characters? Would Rithie's slight twist on the traditional movie treatments of the characters still have worked if the roles had been switched? -- READ MY BLOG http://centralheatingblog.blogspot.com STRING THEORY http://stringtheory.podbean.com
Re: [scifinoir2] What if Actors' Roles were Switched in Sherlock Holmes?
I think Depp would have been too intense and different in ways that'd have been distracting. He'd make a good Moriarity, though, if done right. - Original Message - From: Mr. Worf hellomahog...@gmail.com To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, January 30, 2010 3:13:09 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] What if Actors' Roles were Switched in Sherlock Holmes? I agree. It would have been completely different. There is something quirky about Downey that makes it work. That X factor thing. I wonder if Johnny Depp would have worked in the role? On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 12:03 AM, Omari Confer clockwork...@gmail.com wrote: Law doesnt have the emotional depth to pull off Sherlock. Plain and simple. On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 12:14 AM, Keith Johnson keithbjohn...@comcast.net wrote: After seeing the movie last Sunday, I was wondering about the casting. Downey and Law are really good, but why did Ritchie cast them that way? Law, who's taller, a bit leaner, and has a bit more of an intensely thoughtful look, would seem at first glance to be the natural choice to play Holmes. At least, he probably on the surface appears closer to the tall, lean, serious Holmes of all those movies i saw as a kid. Downey, with his shorter stature, lined, worn face, large expressive eyes, and tendency to look comical, serious,and slightly off all at once, would seem to be a good fit for a slightly comedic Watson--the guy who comments/critiques/jokes from the sidelines as the oh-so-serious Holmes goes about solving the crimes. Indeed, i can see a time before Downey's return to such lofty heights, where another director would probably think it natural to cast the dapper and handsome Law as Holmes, and the quixotic Downey as his funny sidekick. Wonder how such a movie would have turned out? Would the casting have dictated a more traditional take on the characters? Would Rithie's slight twist on the traditional movie treatments of the characters still have worked if the roles had been switched? -- READ MY BLOG http://centralheatingblog.blogspot.com STRING THEORY http://stringtheory.podbean.com -- Celebrating 10 years of bringing diversity to perversity! Mahogany at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mahogany_pleasures_of_darkness/
RE: [scifinoir2] What if Actors' Roles were Switched in Sherlock Holmes?
Keith, I've always been able to see Holmes' emotional complexity, regardless of medium. He craves a challenge to drive him forward. Without it, he stalls, and he shows his vulnerability in his addiction to cocaine. Much like Downey, which is why I cheered his casting in the role. The two are like souls, in a very real sense. If all the world's a stage and all the people merely players, who in bloody hell hired the director? -- Charles L Grant http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQUxw9aUVik To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com From: keithbjohn...@comcast.net Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 16:41:36 + Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] What if Actors' Roles were Switched in Sherlock Holmes? But back to my point, is Holmes in the books as emotionally complicated as Downey's portrayal? The movies I've seen all have Holmes are more stoic than Downey. Not a Vulcan or anything, but more controlled. So, do you think Law in the role would have dictated a less demonstrative Holmes? - Original Message - From: Omari Confer clockwork...@gmail.com To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, January 30, 2010 3:03:59 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] What if Actors' Roles were Switched in Sherlock Holmes? Law doesnt have the emotional depth to pull off Sherlock. Plain and simple. On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 12:14 AM, Keith Johnson keithbjohn...@comcast.net wrote: After seeing the movie last Sunday, I was wondering about the casting. Downey and Law are really good, but why did Ritchie cast them that way? Law, who's taller, a bit leaner, and has a bit more of an intensely thoughtful look, would seem at first glance to be the natural choice to play Holmes. At least, he probably on the surface appears closer to the tall, lean, serious Holmes of all those movies i saw as a kid. Downey, with his shorter stature, lined, worn face, large expressive eyes, and tendency to look comical, serious,and slightly off all at once, would seem to be a good fit for a slightly comedic Watson--the guy who comments/critiques/jokes from the sidelines as the oh-so-serious Holmes goes about solving the crimes. Indeed, i can see a time before Downey's return to such lofty heights, where another director would probably think it natural to cast the dapper and handsome Law as Holmes, and the quixotic Downey as his funny sidekick. Wonder how such a movie would have turned out? Would the casting have dictated a more traditional take on the characters? Would Rithie's slight twist on the traditional movie treatments of the characters still have worked if the roles had been switched? -- READ MY BLOG http://centralheatingblog.blogspot.com STRING THEORY http://stringtheory.podbean.com _ Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft’s powerful SPAM protection. http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/196390706/direct/01/
Re: [scifinoir2] What if Actors' Roles were Switched in Sherlock Holmes?
Thanks for the info. It's been years since I've seen a movie about Holmes. - Original Message - From: Martin Baxter truthseeker...@hotmail.com To: SciFiNoir2 scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, January 30, 2010 3:20:58 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: RE: [scifinoir2] What if Actors' Roles were Switched in Sherlock Holmes? Keith, I've always been able to see Holmes' emotional complexity, regardless of medium. He craves a challenge to drive him forward. Without it, he stalls, and he shows his vulnerability in his addiction to cocaine. Much like Downey, which is why I cheered his casting in the role. The two are like souls, in a very real sense. If all the world's a stage and all the people merely players, who in bloody hell hired the director? -- Charles L Grant http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQUxw9aUVik To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com From: keithbjohn...@comcast.net Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 16:41:36 + Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] What if Actors' Roles were Switched in Sherlock Holmes? But back to my point, is Holmes in the books as emotionally complicated as Downey's portrayal? The movies I've seen all have Holmes are more stoic than Downey. Not a Vulcan or anything, but more controlled. So, do you think Law in the role would have dictated a less demonstrative Holmes? - Original Message - From: Omari Confer clockwork...@gmail.com To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, January 30, 2010 3:03:59 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] What if Actors' Roles were Switched in Sherlock Holmes? Law doesnt have the emotional depth to pull off Sherlock. Plain and simple. On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 12:14 AM, Keith Johnson keithbjohn...@comcast.net wrote: After seeing the movie last Sunday, I was wondering about the casting. Downey and Law are really good, but why did Ritchie cast them that way? Law, who's taller, a bit leaner, and has a bit more of an intensely thoughtful look, would seem at first glance to be the natural choice to play Holmes. At least, he probably on the surface appears closer to the tall, lean, serious Holmes of all those movies i saw as a kid. Downey, with his shorter stature, lined, worn face, large expressive eyes, and tendency to look comical, serious,and slightly off all at once, would seem to be a good fit for a slightly comedic Watson--the guy who comments/critiques/jokes from the sidelines as the oh-so-serious Holmes goes about solving the crimes. Indeed, i can see a time before Downey's return to such lofty heights, where another director would probably think it natural to cast the dapper and handsome Law as Holmes, and the quixotic Downey as his funny sidekick. Wonder how such a movie would have turned out? Would the casting have dictated a more traditional take on the characters? Would Rithie's slight twist on the traditional movie treatments of the characters still have worked if the roles had been switched? -- READ MY BLOG http://centralheatingblog.blogspot.com STRING THEORY http://stringtheory.podbean.com Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft’s powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now.
Re: [scifinoir2] What if Actors' Roles were Switched in Sherlock Holmes?
Stoic wont play to modern audiences in the way they wanted. Unless your making a Merchat Ivory filmcomplicated is the way to go. The protag needs to be vulnerable and unstoppable.Downy is perfect. On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 10:41 AM, Keith Johnson keithbjohn...@comcast.netwrote: But back to my point, is Holmes in the books as emotionally complicated as Downey's portrayal? The movies I've seen all have Holmes are more stoic than Downey. Not a Vulcan or anything, but more controlled. So, do you think Law in the role would have dictated a less demonstrative Holmes? - Original Message - From: Omari Confer clockwork...@gmail.com To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, January 30, 2010 3:03:59 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] What if Actors' Roles were Switched in Sherlock Holmes? Law doesnt have the emotional depth to pull off Sherlock. Plain and simple. On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 12:14 AM, Keith Johnson keithbjohn...@comcast.net wrote: After seeing the movie last Sunday, I was wondering about the casting. Downey and Law are really good, but why did Ritchie cast them that way? Law, who's taller, a bit leaner, and has a bit more of an intensely thoughtful look, would seem at first glance to be the natural choice to play Holmes. At least, he probably on the surface appears closer to the tall, lean, serious Holmes of all those movies i saw as a kid. Downey, with his shorter stature, lined, worn face, large expressive eyes, and tendency to look comical, serious,and slightly off all at once, would seem to be a good fit for a slightly comedic Watson--the guy who comments/critiques/jokes from the sidelines as the oh-so-serious Holmes goes about solving the crimes. Indeed, i can see a time before Downey's return to such lofty heights, where another director would probably think it natural to cast the dapper and handsome Law as Holmes, and the quixotic Downey as his funny sidekick. Wonder how such a movie would have turned out? Would the casting have dictated a more traditional take on the characters? Would Rithie's slight twist on the traditional movie treatments of the characters still have worked if the roles had been switched? -- READ MY BLOG http://centralheatingblog.blogspot.com STRING THEORY http://stringtheory.podbean.com -- READ MY BLOG http://centralheatingblog.blogspot.com STRING THEORY http://stringtheory.podbean.com
Re: [scifinoir2] What if Actors' Roles were Switched in Sherlock Holmes?
I disagree that stoic won't play to modern audiences, but that's a convo for another day. I already ranted about my frustration with all this modern audiences won't talk earlier. Either way, my main questions really are based on how true to the source material Ritchie's film was. I had a good time at the film, could watch it again, and look forward to a sequel. - Original Message - From: Omari Confer clockwork...@gmail.com To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, January 31, 2010 1:03:47 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] What if Actors' Roles were Switched in Sherlock Holmes? Stoic wont play to modern audiences in the way they wanted. Unless your making a Merchat Ivory filmcomplicated is the way to go. The protag needs to be vulnerable and unstoppable.Downy is perfect. On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 10:41 AM, Keith Johnson keithbjohn...@comcast.net wrote: But back to my point, is Holmes in the books as emotionally complicated as Downey's portrayal? The movies I've seen all have Holmes are more stoic than Downey. Not a Vulcan or anything, but more controlled. So, do you think Law in the role would have dictated a less demonstrative Holmes? - Original Message - From: Omari Confer clockwork...@gmail.com To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, January 30, 2010 3:03:59 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] What if Actors' Roles were Switched in Sherlock Holmes? Law doesnt have the emotional depth to pull off Sherlock. Plain and simple. On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 12:14 AM, Keith Johnson keithbjohn...@comcast.net wrote: After seeing the movie last Sunday, I was wondering about the casting. Downey and Law are really good, but why did Ritchie cast them that way? Law, who's taller, a bit leaner, and has a bit more of an intensely thoughtful look, would seem at first glance to be the natural choice to play Holmes. At least, he probably on the surface appears closer to the tall, lean, serious Holmes of all those movies i saw as a kid. Downey, with his shorter stature, lined, worn face, large expressive eyes, and tendency to look comical, serious,and slightly off all at once, would seem to be a good fit for a slightly comedic Watson--the guy who comments/critiques/jokes from the sidelines as the oh-so-serious Holmes goes about solving the crimes. Indeed, i can see a time before Downey's return to such lofty heights, where another director would probably think it natural to cast the dapper and handsome Law as Holmes, and the quixotic Downey as his funny sidekick. Wonder how such a movie would have turned out? Would the casting have dictated a more traditional take on the characters? Would Rithie's slight twist on the traditional movie treatments of the characters still have worked if the roles had been switched? -- READ MY BLOG http://centralheatingblog.blogspot.com STRING THEORY http://stringtheory.podbean.com -- READ MY BLOG http://centralheatingblog.blogspot.com STRING THEORY http://stringtheory.podbean.com
Re: [scifinoir2] What if Actors' Roles were Switched in Sherlock Holmes?
Stoic is the main reason Pirates plays better than Sweeny Todd(and the fact that there are pirates...but i digress) On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 12:20 AM, Keith Johnson keithbjohn...@comcast.netwrote: I disagree that stoic won't play to modern audiences, but that's a convo for another day. I already ranted about my frustration with all this modern audiences won't talk earlier. Either way, my main questions really are based on how true to the source material Ritchie's film was. I had a good time at the film, could watch it again, and look forward to a sequel. - Original Message - From: Omari Confer clockwork...@gmail.com To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, January 31, 2010 1:03:47 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] What if Actors' Roles were Switched in Sherlock Holmes? Stoic wont play to modern audiences in the way they wanted. Unless your making a Merchat Ivory filmcomplicated is the way to go. The protag needs to be vulnerable and unstoppable.Downy is perfect. On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 10:41 AM, Keith Johnson keithbjohn...@comcast.net wrote: But back to my point, is Holmes in the books as emotionally complicated as Downey's portrayal? The movies I've seen all have Holmes are more stoic than Downey. Not a Vulcan or anything, but more controlled. So, do you think Law in the role would have dictated a less demonstrative Holmes? - Original Message - From: Omari Confer clockwork...@gmail.com To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, January 30, 2010 3:03:59 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] What if Actors' Roles were Switched in Sherlock Holmes? Law doesnt have the emotional depth to pull off Sherlock. Plain and simple. On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 12:14 AM, Keith Johnson keithbjohn...@comcast.net wrote: After seeing the movie last Sunday, I was wondering about the casting. Downey and Law are really good, but why did Ritchie cast them that way? Law, who's taller, a bit leaner, and has a bit more of an intensely thoughtful look, would seem at first glance to be the natural choice to play Holmes. At least, he probably on the surface appears closer to the tall, lean, serious Holmes of all those movies i saw as a kid. Downey, with his shorter stature, lined, worn face, large expressive eyes, and tendency to look comical, serious,and slightly off all at once, would seem to be a good fit for a slightly comedic Watson--the guy who comments/critiques/jokes from the sidelines as the oh-so-serious Holmes goes about solving the crimes. Indeed, i can see a time before Downey's return to such lofty heights, where another director would probably think it natural to cast the dapper and handsome Law as Holmes, and the quixotic Downey as his funny sidekick. Wonder how such a movie would have turned out? Would the casting have dictated a more traditional take on the characters? Would Rithie's slight twist on the traditional movie treatments of the characters still have worked if the roles had been switched? -- READ MY BLOG http://centralheatingblog.blogspot.com STRING THEORY http://stringtheory.podbean.com -- READ MY BLOG http://centralheatingblog.blogspot.com STRING THEORY http://stringtheory.podbean.com -- READ MY BLOG http://centralheatingblog.blogspot.com STRING THEORY http://stringtheory.podbean.com
