[Vengeance]

Aptorian, on May 21 2009, 03:07 PM, said:

Vengeance, on May 21 2009, 09:59 PM, said:

Aptorian, on May 21 2009, 12:54 PM, said:

Yeah, I also thought of League of Extraordinary Gentlemen when I saw all the mystic stuff and weird science they were putting in there.

I quite liked that punch he threw. Thoroughly old school fist fighting going on right there.

Nananananananana......Horror.....Nananananananananana

Trust in non-Madonna Guy Ritchy and in Iron Man.

I'm not actually sure what you're saying here. You didn't like League of Extraordinary Gentlemen?

I saw the film before I read the comics and quite liked it. It was one of Connery's last films and had lots of silly over the top fantasy action going on. Like Van Helsing.

The comics are much better though. I still get uncomfortable whem I remember the last "meeting" between Mr Hyde and the Invisible Man.

No I didn't really like the League. I thought that it was to all over the place. It needed more focus. I did like Van Helsing But I thought that they needed to cut down on some of the things in the league. They either tried to over explain bits or not explain them enough. If you followed the comics then you were disappointed and if you didn't then you were left scratching your head. A proper way to do over the top fantasy action would be Hell Boy. I don't think that this will be in anyway like the league as the characters of Holmes and Watson are already known to 90% of the public (5 % can't read and the other 5 % are even bigger morons) . Which will allow Guy some extra lea way in the making of the movie.

[Morgoth]

you liked Van Helsing? VAN HELSING? It's the most plot hole filled hollywood movie in ages. Not to mention it was a piece of shit.

[Gem Windcaster]

Sherlock Holmes was somewhat of a childhood hero of mine. So I will basically always be disappointed by any cinematic portrayal of the character. They always try to make him pc, and he's everything but pc.

[Aptorian]

Morgoth, on May 21 2009, 11:33 PM, said:

you liked Van Helsing? VAN HELSING? It's the most plot hole filled hollywood movie in ages. Not to mention it was a piece of shit.

It's a film about an angel vampire hunter working for the vatican hunting demons and monsters. He has a steamdriven automatic crossbow, there's flying vampires, frankensteins, Giant Mr Hyde's, Wolfmen, and all kinds of hollywood cheese.

Van Helsing is the kind of film where you just switch off your brain and look at the pretty explosions and go "oooohh" and "aaaaahhh".

[Raymond Luxury Yacht]

I'm a little disappointed they have turned Holmes into a scampish ladies man. The movie looks ok, but it's not Sherlock Holmes. I wonder if they'll have Holmes shoot up cocaine like in the books. Doubt it.

[Zanth13]

I dont know, the trailer is out and it looks like he might be doing cocain at one point

http://www.trailerad...-holmes/trailer

ill watch it, i like it

[Zanth13]

proof of a coke head holmes

Attached File(s)

•  crackholmes.jpg (24.63K)
  Number of downloads: 4

[Gem Windcaster]

If they are really going for a likeness from the books, Holmes should also basically dispise women. Watson is the ladies man in the books, being a doctor and all.

This post has been edited by Gem Windcaster: 23 May 2009 - 11:30 AM

[Raymond Luxury Yacht]

Watson gets married though, but Doyle forgot that sometimes.

This post has been edited by Raymond Luxury Yacht: 23 May 2009 - 08:27 PM

[Gem Windcaster]

Hmm, I dunno, I think he mentions it in the books that are chronologically after the book where he gets married. I don't think he forgets it, it's just not that important in the books.

[Daser]

That is a pretty cool trailor.

[Raymond Luxury Yacht]

Gem Windcaster, on May 24 2009, 05:08 AM, said:

Hmm, I dunno, I think he mentions it in the books that are chronologically after the book where he gets married. I don't think he forgets it, it's just not that important in the books.

Iirc, it is spotty. The fact that Watson is married is ignored for a while, then Doyle remembers and mentions her again. It's been a while, I think I need a Holmes reread. I have the complete works of Sherlock Holmes, one massive volume that includes every Holmes story ever. And then I have another book that has the Holmes stories not in that one.

[Zanth13]

Raymond Luxury Yacht, on May 24 2009, 10:16 PM, said:

Gem Windcaster, on May 24 2009, 05:08 AM, said:

Hmm, I dunno, I think he mentions it in the books that are chronologically after the book where he gets married. I don't think he forgets it, it's just not that important in the books.

Iirc, it is spotty. The fact that Watson is married is ignored for a while, then Doyle remembers and mentions her again. It's been a while, I think I need a Holmes reread. I have the complete works of Sherlock Holmes, one massive volume that includes every Holmes story ever. And then I have another book that has the Holmes stories not in that one.

i love paradoxes

the timeline is not important by the way, the rule transcends everything

[Raymond Luxury Yacht]

I was hoping someone would see what I did there. Funny enough, it's all true.

[dktorode]

Heres a little tidbit from soemone who saw an extended scene at Comic Con

Quote

the expanded pit-fight that pissed so many people off in the first trailer. They are going to be eating their words, standing all tall and mighty and expert, believe you me… because that scene is pure Holmes.

What happens is Holmes is bare-knuckle fighting (as is canon) and turns to leave, getting a loogie to the back of the head for his trouble.

Here we get narration as his thought process works out in stages. We see the slow-motion progression of his thoughts… first blind the pissed off giant with a distraction, throw a handkerchief into his face and move in with a precise punch at the right angle that fractures his ribs, follow that up with a befuddlement blow to the head to stun him before kicking him squarely in the chest, sending him down for the count.

All in slow-motion like you see in the trailer. But then we snap back to Holmes in the second he turns after being spit on and the whole fight plays in real time, over in seconds.

The slow motion was his thought process.

[Tremolo]

There is only one Sherlock Holmes and that is Jeremy Brett. Simple as that.

[dktorode]

Tremolo, on Jul 31 2009, 07:52 PM, said:

There is only one Sherlock Holmes and that is Jeremy Brett. Simple as that.

 1246609079112.jpg (32.83K)
Number of downloads: 4

[Slum]

Oh, I guess he's not going to be a ladies man after all....

I don't know exactly how gay this bromance is going to get, cuz it doesn't say...but I do hope it's just subtext or innuendo and not full-blown make-out action.

[Aptorian]

Slumgullion Spitteler, on Aug 4 2009, 03:46 PM, said:

Oh, I guess he's not going to be a ladies man after all....

I don't know exactly how gay this bromance is going to get, cuz it doesn't say...but I do hope it's just subtext or innuendo and not full-blown make-out action.

Quote

But Michael Medved, a former Post movie critic, says Downey and Law must be joking. "There's not a seething, bubbling hunger to see straight stars impersonating homosexuals," Medved told us. "I think they're just trying to generate controversy . . . They know that making Holmes and Watson homosexual will take away two-thirds of their box office. Who is going to want to see Downey Jr. and Law make out? I don't think it would be appealing to women. Straight men don't want to see it."

Good to see that the good old homophobes in journalism are still loud and proud.

The rumours of Watson and Holmes having a gay fling in the film have been around since the movie was announced over a year ago.

Personally I would enjoy watching Downey Jr punishing Jude Law, that nancy boy.

[Raymond Luxury Yacht]

My only problem with it is it goes against canon. I don't want to see Holmes hooking up with Watson for the same reason I don't want to see him hooking up with anyone: he wasn't about that, we never see it in the books. There is no reason to take Holmes and turn him into Tony Stark, or a gay tony Stark.