Did the 2009 Sherlock Holmes ruin the source material?

[Gamegirl22]

I remember when the trailer for Sherlock Holmes was first released and I read countless comments how this will be bad, unfaithful, and ruin the original Sherlock Holmes.
Having not read the books yet I wasn't sure what to make of it but I eventually watched the movie and thought it was pretty good. Not great but good, and it was highly entertaining for the most part.
But it got me wondering if people still feel that way about the movie, especially the fans of Sherlock Holmes, that it was still unfaithful to the books and ruined what the original Sherlock Holmes was... or something.
I know the movie has been out on DVD for awhile but I just bought and watched it so, eh.

 

[Mythbhavd]

No, I don't believe it did. Any movie adaptation of a book is going to depart from the source material. They can't help but do so because there are a lot of things that don't translate from books to movies. With today's movies, you're also hampered by time restrictions. You just won't see many audiences sticking around through an intermission to watch a "Gone with the Wind" length feature.

I thought the spirit of the books was alive and well in the movie.

 

[Weaver]

I thought it was pretty close to the original books, except that Watson should have been more of a womanizer.

 

[cerebus23]

the books were more or less pulp novels for their day, conan hated the character so much he killed him off, but the fact he needed money and the public was so incensed at the death he brought him back to milk the cash cow.

So not the the author took the character all that seriously period, i think some people take it too seriously.

Thought the movie was ok for a summer action flick, which is basically all it was, with just enough detective stuff to keep the less picky purists happy. Nevermind that holems big detective moments in the books were often solved by witholding some piece of evidence that is only known to him, and keeping the public in the dark.

Certainly have been worse sherlock holmes films in the past. think one i saw years ago was the best dealt with holmes drug addiction, and aversion to women, might have been called the 6% solution, one of the more interesting takes on the whole character and one of the more memorable old holmes movies i saw.

 

[rosemystica]

I thought it was pretty close to the original books, except that Watson should have been more of a womanizer.

Yeah, the original Watson was a total pimp. And completely badass.

It didn't ruin the source material for me. I know movie adaptations deviate quite a bit from their source material, so it was expected. I didn't mind it. (Although I personally didn't like the movie, I'm not going to declare the whole thing RUINED FOREVER!!!!! because of it.)

 

[Julianking93]

No. I still love the originals.

So what if the most recent Sherlock Holmes movie was kinda....lacking.

The books are still awesome and they will always be awesome.

 

[Miumaru]

Well, most people probably never actually read the books and only knew some stuff about him, so if it was ruined, not as many were bothered. I mean, they could have had him in the future and Watson was a robot or something.... *shifty eyes*

 

[FaceFaceFace]

You can't ruin source material, that doesn't make sense. Only real life events that completely invalidate a book's point can do that, and since Sherlock Holmes doesn't have those kinds of stories (i.e. a book about how black people are inferior to white people) it cannot be ruined. Plus I really liked the movie. Although that might have soemthing to do with my love of Robert Downing Jr.

 

[Kei Kaemon]

I though the movie was rather good. I don't think it disrespected the source material at all. I mean, I have barely read any of the source, but still...

 

[Blueruler182]

Hell, I heard House was based on Holmes (which I should have guessed, what with Wilson and Watson), and the characters reminded me of them, so I guess it's accurate. But I also heard Holmes had a coke addiction (something like that), so I'm not really sure.

The movie itself was pretty damn good, IMO, so I'm not going to be particularly anal about the books, when I read them.

 

[spectrenihlus]

You can't ruin source material, that doesn't make sense. Only real life events that completely invalidate a book's point can do that, and since Sherlock Holmes doesn't have those kinds of stories (i.e. a book about how black people are inferior to white people) it cannot be ruined. Plus I really liked the movie. Although that might have soemthing to do with my love of Robert Downing Jr.

Yes I think we all have a crush on him.

 

[sheic99]

Well, most people probably never actually read the books and only knew some stuff about him, so if it was ruined, not as many were bothered. I mean, they could have had him in the future and Watson was a robot or something.... *shifty eyes*

Wasn't that a cartoon? I remember something like that when I was younger.

 

[CriticalGriffin]

The movie was entertaining, so I don't really mind.

Not to mention, this has probably the best Watson in any film adaptation ever.

 

[Redlin5_v1legacy]

I enjoyed the movie immensely, it didn't destroy Sherlock for me.

 

[RaphaelsRedemption]

I love the original books. I was hoping for a little more exploration of themes only touched on in the books - Holme's drug addiction (it was opium, by the way), Watson's womanising, Holme's sexual orientation - I mean, he might have been cold, asexual, at a loss how to approach women etc. Or he might have been gay (which, back then, was illegal). I would have loved to have had a really interesting woman play Watson's fiancee, instead of that ice statue I saw in the film.

I liked the film's light touch. I thought Jude Law and Robert Downey Jr worked well together, and that their lines were fairly witty. I found the plot a bit labored, the ending a bit contrived (I mean, I didn't need a sequel so obviously set up, we all know if the movie does well, it will be followed by a sequel). I would have loved some of the above-mentioned themes to have come through.

If you want Sherlock Holmes, read the books. But the last movie was a fun romp.

 

[Ftaghn To You Too]

It's one of the better adaptations. Holmes is supposed to be a jackass who shoots walls and does coke out of sheer boredom. The one weird thing is that he is supposed to be quite obsessed with his appearance, but obviously isn't in the movie.

 

[NeutralDrow]

If the fanfiction and cartoon adaptations didn't kill the source material, that movie definitely didn't. It had Holmes as a multi-talented obsessive and Watson as his competent and indispensable partner; that makes it automatically better than most of the adaptations out there.

 

[WolfThomas]

I love the original books. I was hoping for a little more exploration of themes only touched on in the books - Holme's drug addiction (it was opium, by the way)

I believe it was actually cocaine, which he injected (which is a far more cheaper and effective way than snorting it) in a 7% solution. He did also on occasion inject morphine as well.

Though all three drugs were legal back in those days, in fact opium and alcohol was mixed to make laudanum.