it appears that the sherlock holmes society has not embraced the downy version of holmes. to be sure, there are indeed some aspects of this portrayal that have the detective involved in some inapproprite behavior for a pure intellectual and circumspect charachter. (holmes would not swan dive into the thames from a forth floor window).
http://www.northjersey.com/arts_entertainment/135490028_Meeting_details.html

kirok wrote on Dec 15^th, 2011 at 8:47am:

it appears that the sherlock holmes society has not embraced the downy version of holmes.

     They for some reason reject a portrayal that has nothing to do with the character as conceived & written?  Sherlock Holmes as Jason Bourne?  They have a problem with that?  Shocker!
     This will be playing at the Somerville, BTW.

David the Projectionist wrote on Dec 15^th, 2011 at 10:32am:

They for some reason reject a portrayal that has nothing to do with the character as conceived & written?  Sherlock Holmes as Jason Bourne?[/font]

Aw, c'mon, Sherlock Holmes has always been an action hero.  The deduction always got first billing, but Holmes's mastery of baritsu and skill as a boxer are right there in the canon.  He once faked his own death and went off the grid for three years, was a master of disguise, and broke into Charles Augustus Milverton's house like a common thief.

Holmes was a superhero, and that's part of why the character was so popular and has survived so well when his contemporaries have fallen by the wayside:  So long as you get certain aspects of the character right - and I'd argue that Downey, Ritchie, and company do manage to get his impatience, eye for detail, and antisocial tendencies right - Sherlock Holmes works in any sort of story.

kirok wrote on Dec 15^th, 2011 at 8:47am:

... (holmes would not swan dive into the thames from a forth floor window). http://www.northjersey.com/arts_entertainment/135490028_Meeting_details.html

I can't imagine that any well-bred, educated Victorian person with a brain would've jumped into that sewage swamp, really.  But in an updated 21st century fantasy...  Unless it was the drugs, of course....
;)

any stage or film depiction of sherlock holmes must deviate from the original canon. he is emotionless and was describes by watson as having the demeanor of a cigar store indian.

Jay Seaver wrote on Dec 15^th, 2011 at 11:08am:

Aw, c'mon, Sherlock Holmes has always been an action hero....Holmes was a superhero, and that's part of why the character was so popular and has survived so well when his contemporaries have fallen by the wayside

     "Good heavens, Holmes!"  I exclaimed.  "You are alive?"
     "Obviously, Watson."
     "May I inquire as to how?  I thought surely those horrid mechanical Automatons from the fiendish Luthor had done you in!"
     "Watson, Watson: your slow eye again betrays you.  Had you been an observant creature, you would have noticed that, before we left our Baker Street flat, I slipped into my pocket some serum which I had borrowed from Mr Olsen -- you do remember our calling on him three days ago? -- which enables his conversion into Elastic Lad.  I was therefore able to squeeze my way into the rocket, blast off into outer space, and get dosed by the cosmic rays expelled by the ether.  It allowed me to turn, as it were, into a Human Torch, and in such guise I flamed down to the planet, borrowed the Phantom Zone projector from the Fortress of Solitude, exposed it liberally to the gamma ray radiation, and, thus armed, was able to exploit the weakness noted by Dr Sivana in his obscure dissertation, and thereby render the Automatons useless!  They attacked their master, and fell into the sea; but employing the telepathic powers I possess that allows me to control all aquatic creatures, I ensured their everlasting emtombment in the Marianne Pit, which will not be discovered until the following century."
     "The deuce you say, Holmes!  Truly, you are the most remarkable man living!"
     "You exaggerate again, Watson; it is tiresome.  Now, let us away to home: my pipe and slippers await."

     Give me a break.  ;D

I like this Holmes as well. I grew up reading Doyle and have enjoyed, for the most part, the different ways that the character has been portrayed on screen.   
 

the latest bbc production is very good and is set in the present day. watson is a wounded veteran of the current afghanistan war.
basil rathbone fought nazi spies in "the voice of terror". he was seen employing an oscilloscope and state of the art electronic gear to obtain clues.

A side order of pastiche please

http://rnuninga.home.xs4all.nl/NovCol/lpic/aotpp-2.jpg http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51H9qw2FhUL._SS500_.jpg

there are limits my good man.
http://www.geektoysgamesandgadgets.com/allimages/SherlockHolmes6inActionFigure.jpg

I'm not a big SHERLOCK HOLMES fan, so I'm not any sort of purist. I read and heard good things about the first Downey HOLMES film. Eh. Over the top babble as far as I was concerned. Much more Guy Ritchie than Arthur Conan Doyle. Sure, you could argue that Holmes was athletic and had above average physical skills, but nothing like Richie's superhero claptrap with CGI up the wazoo. A loud and clanky bore.

And, I apparently wasn't the only one who felt that way, for the sequel which came out yesterday did about 1/3 less box office than the first despite the fact that sequels often open much larger than the original not to mention ticket price inflation.

L.A. Connection wrote on Dec 17^th, 2011 at 12:37pm:

I'm not a big SHERLOCK HOLMES fan, so I'm not any sort of purist. I read and heard good things about the first Downey HOLMES film. Eh. Over the top babble as far as I was concerned. Much more Guy Ritchie than Arthur Conan Doyle. Sure, you could argue that Holmes was athletic and had above average physical skills, but nothing like Richie's superhero claptrap with CGI up the wazoo. A loud and clanky bore. And, I apparently wasn't the only one who felt that way, for the sequel which came out yesterday did about 1/3 less box office than the first despite the fact that sequels often open much larger than the original not to mention ticket price inflation.

So you don't like Holmes and you hate Guy Ritchie..... sure that's balanced.   ::)

I didn't say I didn't like Sherlock Holmes (PRIVATE LIFE OF SHERLOCK HOLMES is, if an unconventional a take, one of Billy Wilder's more underrated pictures and both versions of HOUND are pretty fine as well), nor some Guy Ritchie for that matter. It's his take on Holmes that is meaningless dross.

Frank wrote on Dec 17^th, 2011 at 6:15pm:

I'm not a big SHERLOCK HOLMES fan.

You are so right. Why would anyone think that you do not like Holmes based on the above statement. 

Fan is short for fanatic. I enjoy some Sherlock, but I don't consider myself a fanatic about same.

L.A. Connection wrote on Dec 17^th, 2011 at 10:31pm:

Fan is short for fanatic. I enjoy some Sherlock, but I don't consider myself a fanatic about same.

Right because that is how you meant fan.  In modern usage, everyone says fan when they really mean fanatic rather than indicating that they like something.  Puh-leese.  ::)

So from now on whenever you use the word fan in any sentence I will take it that you mean that you are : marked by excessive enthusiasm and often intense uncritical devotion and that I can expect to witness such a display. Right LA right.