[ SECRET POST #2721 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2721 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.


__________________________________________________



13.


__________________________________________________



14.


__________________________________________________



15.


__________________________________________________



16.











Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 04 pages, 084 secrets from Secret Submission Post #389.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 1 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[dreemyweird]

I think you're right in that he possesses considerable physical strength and is certainly not a sickly man, but I also believe that the OP was lamenting Roxburgh's un-Holmesian looks and worded their complaints poorly. They probably meant to say that Roxburgh is not thin, not pale enough, and does not have this look of general sharpness and angular-ness Holmes is supposed to have. His features aren't exactly "chiseled", either.

Other than that, IA.

[cushlamochree]

You know what, you're right, I probably did misread it.

THAT SAID I also, separately, think that I tend to emphasize those qualities of Holmes a little less than other people do. I would think of him more as wiry than as thin, I guess. And while Roxburgh doesn't really look the way I think Holmes looks, he's not that much further than most other actors who've played the part.

I should also say that I haven't seen this adaptation, because I don't really watch a lot of adaptations, mostly for that reason: the actors they get to play the part never really come across as Holmes for me. It's not the actors fault, either, I don't think there's any actor who could really pull off Holmes for me - he's a very distinctive personality in my mind. In other words, my standards are probably just too high, so that almost no one meets them.

[dreemyweird]

Curiously, many f!s Holmesians (with the exception of tweed) seem to agree that there is no "perfect" Holmes adaptation. Maybe there is something in the Canon that prevents it from being properly converted into film/TV, although I've yet to formulate what exactly this something is. It may be a textual thing rather than your high standards (or the combination of the two).

Ehh he's MUCH further than Rathbone or Brett, I'd say, but Cumberbatch, Miller, and Downey Jr. are certainly no better than him. (Purely in terms of appearance). So IMO dismissing Roxburgh on the basis of how he looks, while being a valid thing to do, requires to dismiss just about all modern versions+some of the old ones (Seven-Per-Cent Solution being a shining example).

Also OT, but kudos for using the word "wiry" to describe Holmes. I like it a lot. And it reminds me of the Murder Rooms novels.

[tweedisgood]

I *don't* think there is a perfect Holmes adaptation, actually: I'm not sure where you got that idea, as I've never said it. Granada and BBC Radio (Merrison/Williams; Sachs doesn't do it for me) come closest IMO; not the same as perfect. Adaptations from one medium to another are always going to lose something. They are always going to gain something too (certain adaptations excepted, again my opinion).

[dreemyweird]

Yes, sorry, you're right. I shouldn't have worded it like this. It's more your view that the BBC and the Granada adaptations come really close to the canon as contrasted with the view some other people hold that no adaptation comes close to it. As you pointed out, saying that any adaptation of anything is "perfect" is unrealistic, anyway, so I subconsciously used the word "perfect" to mean "as good as an adaptation can be".

[cushlamochree]

Well, like I said, Holmes is a distinctive character, a very distinctive character. Even setting aside the specifics of his character, he's physically distinctive - tall, and wiry, and as you said angular (that's another very good word). There's something almost hawk-like about him. So just to start off with, there's not all that many actors who can pull off that combination of traits. And then you get into Holmes' actual character, the extreme intensity, the intelligence, the coldness and the warmth, the high humor, the robustness and energy and the lassitude... well, it's hardly any wonder that not many people can really carry it off, is there? He's not a very normal person at all. And most of us are normal people.

I do think my standards are more unreasonable and higher than most peoples', though, because most people seem to be much more able to enjoy adaptations than I am. I don't know, it just feels like adaptations only ever really scratch the surface, and just pick a few of Holmes' traits to really develop, and it just tends to leave me cold.

[dreemyweird]

Maybe it's that, true. I'm so very used to a ton of people trying to play a genius with an incredibly complex character that perhaps I forgot how difficult it actually must be.

>I do think my standards are more unreasonable and higher than most peoples', though, because most people seem to be much more able to enjoy adaptations than I am. I don't know, it just feels like adaptations only ever really scratch the surface, and just pick a few of Holmes' traits to really develop, and it just tends to leave me cold.

This seems to be my impression of SH adaptations, as well, but it doesn't prevent me from enjoying them at all? So I guess you do have a case of the high standards :D Not that it's a bad thing, mind. I've narrative quirks of my own (as you may remember from our conversation re:Homicide and in-universe consistency).