Did the 2009 Sherlock Holmes ruin the source material?

[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*

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

Yep. I watched it a few times, mostly when it was on and nothing else.

 

[ResonanceSD]

It was good enough, the departure from the novels that will inevitably originate from a film adaption is needed so that the film actually works as a film.

 

[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)

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.

I must go back and re-read! Thank you for the correction. I can only remember opium being clearly mentioned (in several short stories involving opium-dens), although that doesn't mean Holmes didn't also inject cocaine and morphine (the morphine makes a lot of sense, seeing as Watson was a doctor).

And you are correct. All above mentioned drugs were legal, although socially they were frowned upon. A gentleman could drink and smoke, take snuff and gamble, but drugs were for in private or for the lower classes.

 

[Tartarga]

The only thing I didn't like about was that Sherlock didn't say "Elementary my dear Watson". Otherwise I thought it was awesome.

 

[Weaver]

In case you guys want to read the originals, they're all public domain now and available online legally.

 

[Gamegirl22]

Well, the whole 'they're ruining the source material' is what I heard from the fans a lot so I was trying to quote it.

 

[tomclone5]

The only thing I didn't like about was that Sherlock didn't say "Elementary my dear Watson". Otherwise I thought it was awesome.

Unfortunately, Holmes never actually said that in the book or the short stories, and I'm kind of grateful they didn't say that in the movie, would've ruined it for me. overall I enjoyed it though.

 

[Gigaguy64]

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*

I remember that.....
I came on around the same time as that Carmen Sandiego Cartoon.
*shudders*

Ot:I loved it.
The most i know about Sherlock Holmes is what iv looked up, a few of the older movies, and what little iv read from the books.
In my opinion it was a great Adaptation, and there are far worse adaptations out there.

 

[LongAndShort]

I thought the characters were amongst the closest I've seen to their depictions in the books. Its good to see Watson not played as simply Sherlock's muscle, or a complete dunce and comic relief like he is in many other depictions.

The mystery wasn't great though. I hope they come up with something better in the next movie.

 

[Looking For Alaska]

As a fan of Doyle/Holmes:

I dug the movie, it was fun. Also I don't think it's possible for any adaptation to "ruin" the source material. They'll always be separate.

 

[Silver Patriot]

I've only started reading the books but my grandmother has read all of the Homes books and she said that the potrail of Homes was pretty faithfull to the books.

So I am going to go with no.

 

[capin Rob]

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.

I liled the movie too, I don't think it ruined the siurce material, I've seen a few old shelock Holmes movies, they were also fairly good.

 

[JaredXE]

Most accurate representation of Holmes I've seen. The old BBC ones with Raithbone and others always portrayed Holmes as a sensible, stuffed-shirt/stiff upper lipped British man. Which he was not. He was arrogant, drug-abusing, OCD and incredibly untidy with his home.

Make him a womanizer, and it's again a case of life imitating art with the casting of Downy Jr.

 

[Layz92]

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

They sought of had to put that professor bit in the end. After all Moriarty is Sherlock's nemesis and mastermind to a bunch of the crimes Sherlock solves or prevents in the books. Future movie or movies would require him to be involved somewhere. Even on the off chance there is no sequel they would still have had to mention Moriarty even in passing because he is so significant.

OT: I enjoyed the movie. Witty, action and fairly faithful (with the drug using, eccentricities etc) as far as I can see. Ranks up with my movies of the year. Doesn't damage the originals reputation because they are the original books and completely separate anyway.

 

[Sarkule]

It wasn't just the book made into a movie, they just had the same characters etc.
So rather than taking one of the stories and ruining it they just used the same characters etc. for a movie!
I'm hoping somebody understands what I'm saying!