[ SECRET POST #2560 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2560 ⌋

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

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.
















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 052 secrets from Secret Submission Post #366.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 1 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[forgottenjester]

Is any Sherlock really IC and not an AU? I mean, they're all adaptations, right?

[(Anonymous)]

Some are closer to IC than others. I'd say the Grenada version is pretty darn close, with props to The Great Mouse Detective, which, despite the fact that the protagonists are rodents, still comes a lot closer than the RDJ version in terms of characterization.

[forgottenjester]

*shrug* I just feel like the OP is singling this one out where there have been so many adaptations over the years that didn't give a single fuck as to what the books did.

[(Anonymous)]

... I'm guessing the OP singled this one out because it's the only one with RDJ in it and it's a secret about RDJ, not Sherlock Holmes?

[forgottenjester]

True. I got sidetracked. I do that. A lot. It's a bad habit.

[(Anonymous)]

Just because certain franchises emphasize one part of his character more than others doesn't make him OOC in those franchises, IMO. I for one was glad to see a greater emphasis on Holmes's physicality in the Downey films.

[(Anonymous)]

That was nice since you don't see many references to Holmes' skill at bare-knuckle boxing and martial arts, but I'm not sure I felt it was a good trade-off because it sacrificed just about everything else. Holmes wasn't a mischievous smartaleck and womanizer, and Downey's version is far more eccentric than ACD's Holmes.

[forgottenjester]

I didn't say the movie was bad. I was actually questioning the validity of all adaptations and saying, "Who the fuck care how much like the book they are? That's why this is an adaptation, not the actual canon." So I really feel people should do whatever they want.

[tweedisgood]

Granada. Also BBC Radio Holmes, whose praises I can never sing highly enough. A thing can be an adaptation and In Character.

[forgottenjester]

It's in character to you. I dunno, I think with something like adaptations they can do whatever they want and what is "in character" and what "out of character" doesn't really apply.

[tweedisgood]

Me and really rather a lot of other people, from what I gather, but the question of characterisation is in part subjective, true. But I wouldn't go so far as to say it doesn't matter if they do "whatever they want": surely then it can cease to be an adaptation in any real sense. Semantics, maybe, but an element of truth as well.

[intrigueing]

But you're talking as though an adaptation HAS to be "in character," as in "a reproduction of canon." Which is fine -- Granada and Coules are excellent and I adore them both to piece (though I think they're just a tad overrated -- they're more uneven than people let on, although when they're good they are SO good). But that's a tangent so...

a) what may be a "perfect" adaptation to you is not a perfect adaption to everyone, especially with a source material so full of gaps and open to interpretation as Sherlock Holmes. Everyone's going to have a different opinion. I mean, Granada and Coules aren't identical to each other either. There's a reason Sherlock Holmes has been adapted fifty gazillion times more than any other fictional character -- there's a lot of ways of doing it.

And b) it would get really, really boring if people just did the same in-character adaptation over and over and over and over and over and over and over. Actually, there would be no market for such a thing at all.

So my attitude is this: what, exactly, is the big deal with letting filmmakers go nuts with their ideas, since Sherlock Holmes is a pop-culture icon who has long since transcended the stories? I mean, how does it hurt, exactly? It hasn't hurt at all. It's only helped as far as I can see (apart from the hopeless morass that fanfic comms have become). All it does is bring in more fans, spark the interest of people who like things to be presented differently, and make it more likely for them to read and appreciate the books, with are brilliant and almost everyone who actually gives them a chance agrees that they're brilliant -- let me tell you, I have barely ever met a fan who was introduced to Sherlock Holmes through RDJ (or even BBC or Elementary) who didn't like the stories once they actually got interested in them.

If that's what creative adaptations do, I say bring the suckers on. (Personally, I vote for a really creepy horror one next, to contrast with the bright action-y RDJ and BBC and the police procedural-y Elementary.)

[(Anonymous)]

100% this! I love every adaption in it's own way because each one means I get a new version of my favorite duo. Also totally behind a horror version.

[tweedisgood]

No, that wasn't what I meant. In character does *not* have to be a direct reproduction of the canon material - the examples I gave are (more or less), true. But as long as the characters themselves, the individuals, are recognisable, and I don't recognise canon Holmes in RDJ, or BBC (haven't seen Elementary), the key pleasures remain for me (I mean, come on, I write fanfic myself, if I thought only straight canon was acceptable I'd be stuffed). I'm up for dark, Ripper Street style Holmes, sure. No vampires or werewolves for choice, though.

[intrigueing]

Ah, I understand. I'd say that's a perfectly good reason to not like it, but a lot of (perhaps most) people come into SH fandom from the other direction -- first they see the adaptations, then they check out the stories. Or they read a couple stories once a long time ago, found them boring, and then rediscovered them after seeing an adaptation.

IMO, I don't really think (in these cases at least, not in all cases *thinks of Nigel Bruce*) being introduced to an erroneous view of the character has had a negative impact on the popular perception of Sherlock Holmes, especially when there's several different competing interpretations at the same time -- from everything I've seen, SH is now perceived as more fun and interesting than before, and from everything I've seen, new fans usually like canon Holmes too once they read the stories, but a lot of them wouldn't have given the stories a chance unless their attention was first grabbed by an adaptation that was more up their alley.

I mean, if I'm misinformed about the whole "erroneous introduction having a negative impact on the general perception of Holmes" thing, feel free to correct me, because that would piss me off, but I just haven't seen anything of the sort, while I've seen a lot of the opposite.

(btw, is Ripper Street any good? I'd never heard of it before and got kind of intrigued by that secret a few days ago bemoaning the fact that it was canceled).

[tweedisgood]

To an extent I agree, I'd rather people read the stories and get to know the characters, however they got there.
But (and this may be a function of too much time on tumblr) there *does* seem to be a lot of erroneous conflation of especially CumberHolmes with canon Holmes, such that a few people (who, I am glad to say, generated many detailed protests from canonites) were genuinely trying to argue that the Tube scene from TEH (I won't say more because spoilers) showed a "much less cruel" characterisation than DYIN Holmes, to which: hell, no. DYIN Holmes didn't make Watson think he was going to die too. And this bothers me.
Ripper Street: I did enjoy it and am bummed it has been cancelled (there are some hopes for a revival after widespread outrage). The dirt and all portrayal of working class London and the clothing (costume porn, I love it), sets and location (Victorian buildings in Dublin), the interesting and usually well-researched stories/cases. Sergeant Atherton's big red beard. These I loved. Less interested in soap opera love-lives, rather too much lovingly detailed violence against women (sadly probably authentic, though)and some of the dialogue is clunky. Matthew McFayden remains as wooden as he was in Spooks. Overall, I'd rather have it than not

[intrigueing]

Hmm...I know about those BBC fans who do a lot of conflation and keep trying to claim that BBC is ~so close to canon~, but I always kinda assumed they were a vocal fringe group rather than a large or influential portion of the fans or viewership. That's just my perception though -- I really started avoiding BBC fandom this past year or two. I guess I'll have to wait to see how much influence they have in the long run.

Thanks for the Ripper Street info -- I think I'll check it out :)