Page 13 of 13 FirstFirst ...
  1. #241
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    B'ham, AL
    Quote Originally Posted by Skizzit View Post
    When the major alternatives are the BBC Sherlock, the Robert Downey Jr. one, or the god awful Will Ferrell one, that really isn't saying much.
    MODERN - yes, we're pretty limited. Because it wasn't until post 2010 that anyone wanted (or got enough money to attempt) to reboot Sherlock Holmes as "modern" in the first place. =D

    Prior to that though we have several awesome "old skool" Sherlock Holmes actors - both that acted in original movie/tv programs as well as those who acted in tv series/movies based or scripted off the original Doyle Stories.

    As an old Sherlockian/Holmesian - I had to post .

    And for my money - the best Sherlock Holmes actor, bar none, for me - Jeremy Brett. Played him for years as part of the PBS/BBC Sherlock Holmes Series (from the early 90s) which was a tv series adapting the original Doyle stories and books (and only the original). Brett epitomizes every aspect of the Holmes personality perfectly to me in his acting, and he looks dead-on too. (And for your older-loving Hollywood-philes a Younger Jeremy Brett sang the role of Freddie Einsford Hill in the "My Fair Lady" movie production opposite Aubrey Hepburn. Cracks me up to see Sherlock Singing down the sidewalk in that movie LOL =D).

    He will always be "The Sherlock" to me. The one whom all other actors are measured against, for that character.

    I'd get into the Stephen King discussion too but that just would keep all of this way off topic and i'm not trying to hijack really LOL. If anyone starts another thread debating adaptations of fiction (Or King specifically) we can talk there LOL. There are SO MANY good and bad adaptations, it really could be its own lecture on "doing it wrong vs. doing it right."

    Some adaptations are better for sticking close to the source; some are better for not doing so. Only the finished project will show us and stand for itself. Only then will people find out if character/plot changes (whatever they might be and all of them that are there) were "worth it" or not. Sometimes it works great; sometimes its awful enough for authors to sue to have their names removed (*cough* Lawnmower Man *cough*)

    On a related note: Yes, actually, I do consider the Ranklin Bass animated version of The Hobbit to be the far better adaptation than the PJ trilogy. LOTR PJ Trilogy is awesome - the animated Bass movies are "alright". But not his Hobbit; the animated version is far better and, ONE of the reasons I would say it is, is because it is a truer re-telling of the actual book's story - than the live-action trilogy ended up being.
    Last edited by Koriani; 2021-07-06 at 06:54 PM.
    Koriani - Guardians of Forever - BM Huntard on TB; Kharmic - Worgen Druid - TB
    Koriani - none - Dragon of Secret World
    Karmic - Moirae - SWTOR
    inactive: Frith-Rae - Horizons/Istaria; Koriani in multiple old MMOs. I been around a long time.

  2. #242
    I realize I have contributed to some of this derailment....but all of this talk about Hulks, LotR, Sherlock Holmes, etc is really off-topic.

    Let's bring it back to Sandman.

  3. #243
    Titan Syegfryed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Darkshore, Killing Living and Dead elves
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    I understand your sentiment and what you're trying to say, but you need to realize that everything you said here is 100% bullshit coming from your mouth.

    An adaptation of an existing work can change the material as much as it pleases and still be considered a derivative work.
    the only 100% bullshit is how you are keep twisting things and outright ignoring what one is saying and you keep arguing like ims aying a movie should be 100% faithful, just showing your disonest intent of conversation.

    You're trying to make a point that being more faithful to the novels would make it better, yet here you are arguing that changes to the original novel are fine.

    Yet that is rarely the goal of a film adaptation. It is not to be faithful to the source, it's to capitalize on an already established property that guarantees an audience for a new movie.
    And when it is faithful to source it becomes arguable way better if it was not.

    A lord of the ring books, without taking the book as source would be shit, period.

    I'm expressing it as an opinion. You're free to disagree, and I'd be fine if you did. Except you aren't exactly disagreeing, you're trying to explain your opinion as though it's some sort of objective standard of what an Adaptation must be, and for the most part I'm countering all that bullshit with plenty of examples that go against what you're suggesting.
    My dude, if you are making an adaptation, of a source, faitfhul to the source is a objective standard you can count for it. There is big, small or compeltely different changes in adaptation, that is not subjective.

    They can be judged. I never said they can't be judged. All I said is it's a subjective opinion that will differ from person-to-person.
    you said people should not do that, which is worse, cause you can't dictate what other people should do.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts