It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
[/quote]
Or that. Excellent posts Sirs.
If the next series of Sherlock is as good as the last then EON have to finally fire those two clowns and give Moffat and Gattis a crack at Bond.[/quote]
You know I'd never thought of that until you mentioned it, they both would be perfect for a crack at it, I guess we'll see what P&W deliver with SF but it seems they are now on their 3rd film where a more experienced and talented writer had to collaborate or polish their work.
Moffatt and Gattis know the character and I think would completely embrace the Britishness of Bond that Mendes has really bought to the front with SF and also like they have with Holmes incorporate Fleming's feel into a contemporary 007 adventure.
On the subject of Holmes, the BBC should finance alongside another studio a big screen story for Cumberbatch & Freeman, I'd love to see these 2 get the cinema treatment, what's wrong with both going head to head?
I know they've incorporated elements from Conan Doyle's books into these RDJ films but when a series that is set decades later feel so much more like the characters on the page you know something got diluted and the big set pieces button got pressed a little too much and plot and depth got sacrificed at it's expense.
Or that. Excellent posts Sirs.
If the next series of Sherlock is as good as the last then EON have to finally fire those two clowns and give Moffat and Gattis a crack at Bond.[/quote]
You know I'd never thought of that until you mentioned it, they both would be perfect for a crack at it, I guess we'll see what P&W deliver with SF but it seems they are now on their 3rd film where a more experienced and talented writer had to collaborate or polish their work.
Moffatt and Gattis know the character and I think would completely embrace the Britishness of Bond that Mendes has really bought to the front with SF and also like they have with Holmes incorporate Fleming's feel into a contemporary 007 adventure.
[/quote]
To be honest I'd rather see Moffat tackle Bond on his own. Gattis' solo work - both on Sherlock and Doctor Who - has not impressed me too much. I think that he's like what Andrew Ridgely was to George Michael in Wham or Curt Smith to Roland Orzabel in Tears for Fears - he didn't take anything away but he's not really needed either (unless it's just to take pressure off of Moffat running two high-profile shows at once). Moffat's solo work has been amazing though.
The one thing that would be tricky is that Moffat's original ideas are so good that it would be a bit of a waste to bring him on as a script polisher, but then again his writing is so precise that if he was the originating writer I can't see a script polisher doing anything other than diluting Moffat's work...
About a month and a half ago I started reading Arthur Conan Doyle's stories. So far I've read A Study In Scarlet, The Sign Of Four, The Adventures Of Sherlock Holmes (collection of short stories) and The Hound of the Baskervilles, which I just finished about an hour ago. All amazing stories, very clever, wonderfully written and with great characters. Holmes is such a brilliant character.
Ritchie's films have almost nothing in common with Conan Doyle's Holmes. And RDJ, as much as I like him as Tony Stark/Iron Man, is a very bad choice for Holmes. Jude Law is an interesting choice for Watson, but his character is not very true to the books. The constant bickering between him and Holmes is absent in Conan Doyle's work. Sure, Watson is annoyed by Holmes quite a few times in the books, but mostly he admires him and his incredible observation an deduction skills.
I've seen on YouTube some clips of Peter Cushing's Holmes and a few whole episodes of Jeremy Brett's. They're both much, much better than RDJ. Especially Brett. He is amazing. That series truly captured Arthur Conan Doyle's atmosphere, characters and style.
Though he was horribly sick at the time, Jeremy like every time in his life pushed on no matter how he was feeling. He would say, "But, darlings, the show must go on". RIP to the master of Holmes. If you want a fascinating read, hit up his wikipedia page.
I liked the first of Guy Ritchie's films (although I cringe quite badly each time Watson insists that Holmes should meet Mary) mainly because they present Holmes also as a man of action, Robert Downey Junior is an amazing actor and although he doesn't match my idea of Holmes he still manages to create a reasonably faithful/neurotic interpretation and Jude Law is an excellent Dr. Watson. I didn't like the second as much as the first though. I love all the scenes with the brilliant Jared Harris as Moriarty but there is this overdose of action and things that simply don't make sense. Another thing, Noomi Rapace's character (and her interpretation) truly annoys me and I can't help thinking she is useless to the story. The end was just silly.
Now Sherlock plays in a whole different league. I happened to watch it almost by accident (or luck) by switching to the channel when it was starting. I was amazed! I simply wasn't expecting it. It still amazes me how perfect they got it, how the best adaptation is the one that changed almost everything... because they changed everything BUT the essential. I have so much fun looking for the similarities and differences to the books. Both Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman are absolutely perfect as Sherlock and Watson. Both seasons were extraordinary and I'm eagerly awaiting the 3rd one.
However I don't think that the success of Moffat and Gattis would automatically make them ideal for Bond. There is no way to know, it might work but it might be disastrous.
Who said anything about bringing him in as merely a script polisher? Its quite simple - P&W get your coats and heres a map to the nearest dole office. In come Moffat and Gattis. Wheres the problem there?
Well it might be disastrous you're right. So lets just safely stick with P&W shall we?
If you are in a plane that has no engines and is plummeting to the earth you could stay in the plane or you could take a punt, grab an umbrella and jump out and see if you can parachute to safety.
To get rid of P&W I'd be happy for the bloke who writes Glee assisted by President Ahmadinejad of Iran to come on board.
No matter how good SF is, Babs if you are reading this - sack these clowns. I know they are cheap but you are happy to pay for a stellar cast and director - why not pay out for good writers as well?
EDIT - Just noticed my 1000th post. At least it was a nice typically bile filled invective. I was hoping it would coinicide with Bond day but then I just thought - F**k it. If EON cant be bothered to make any effort for Bond day then why should I?
What has one thing to do with the other? Did I say let's stick with P&W because it's safe? No. I just said that Moffat and Gattis style might not be adequate for Bond.
Because in case you hadnt noticed what we have at the moment is disastrous so how can it be a risk to twist on M & G rather than stick with the Chuckle brothers?
http://www.slashfilm.com/sequel-bits-sin-city-2-super-troopers-2-sherlock-holmes-3-indiana-jones-5-ted-2-magic-mike-2-the-shining/#more-139545
I haven't seen RDJ's or Law's schedule as of late, but I hope we wouldn't have to wait until November/December 2014 for the third installment.
Well next year is out, so it has to be the one after.
Or,
You all know it is true.
One thing though: The BBC series shows blatantly how much the cinematic films could benefit from the concept character over Hollywood buddy movie.
I know that all too well. ;)
Well next year is out, so it has to be the one after.[/quote]
>>>>>>>>
I'm afraid that there won't be a third Sherlock Holmes/Downey film in 2014. In
place of the anticipated SH:3 release in Dec 2014, it's been announced on several
sites that Team Downey and Warner Bros are premiering their new Perry Mason
franchise on Dec 31st 2014.
Some months ago Jude Law was announced for Henry v onstage for precisely
the months when they would've been shooting SH3. So it looks like he had
those months unexpectedly free after being told there ould be no outing for
a Sherlock Holkmes sequel in 2014.
Warner Bros have been quoted as saying that the future of the SH films is 'TBD'.
I'm very disappointed since I loved both the Downey films and BBC 'Sherlock'.
SH: A Game of Shadows made between $534-544 millions worldwide and has
sold over $100 million in DVDs/Blu-ray in the USA alone, so one wonders what
a film has to earn for WB to consider a sequel. Of course the acrimonious
departure of one of its producers, Joel Silver, from WB hasn't helped.
Attention all Sherlockian Comrades ~ A STUDY IN SHERLOCK
The game is afoot! We are announcing our new thread, dedicated to reading and reviewing ALL the Holmes novels and stories. If you'd like to be part of the Baker Street Bibliophiles who review the stories (so far 0BradyM0Bondfanatic7, Sandy, Jones_The_Bond, and 4EverBonded), then please read on.
Essentially, we will be doing reviews of some of our favorite Sherlock Holmes stories first, then going to a random number system for the rest. We will be reviewing by categories such as: Holmes, Watson, Villain, Atmosphere, Cleverness, etc.- sort of set up similar to the way the films are reviewed on the Originals thread ( they are doing all the Bond films).
All members here on MI6 are encouraged to give their comments, impressions, and reviews - but only the committed corp group (who are doing all the Holmes novels and stories - which are more than 50) will count for the overall ratings/score. So you do not have to be part of the corp group to participate and enjoy this as we go along. Set up is similar to the Originals thread regarding Bond films.
Want to join our dedicated band of Holmes reviewers known as the Baker Street Bibliophiles? If you would like to be part of our corp group, and try this for long term, just PM @4EverBonded. After an initial a quick discussion with her, you would then be joining us in reviewing the stories. That means that your reviews would count to our final scoring (foreseeably more than a year from now).
This is a genuine review thread, done seriously (yet with appropriate humor throughout welcome). All rules, terms and conditions of MI6 apply (e.g., no swearing).
Again, we hope many members comment, participate, and write some reviews! Not just our long term reviewers.
We hope many Sherlock fans here at MI6 will find plenty to enjoy in this new ongoing Sherlock Holmes literary thread, A Study in Sherlock.
We will begin our first review sometime in the next few days. The amount of time given to each story will vary as some are quite short and some obviously are much longer.
* We will be posting 3 clues soon, so you may try to deduce which story that may be! *
Additional info: Here are the full categories for each review ~
Holmes - Watson - Villain - Supporting characters - Atmosphere -Suspense - Violence (or bloodiness) - Humor -Cleverness -Overall Impressions
Off to catch that racing hansom cab again ~
The Baker Street Bibliophiles
I can´t be part of the team, because I´m not sure I could find time to reread the Canon. Anyway I´ll be pleased to follow you.