Holmes/Watson forward

I blame the Bond movie.

No. No, no, no, no, and just in case you were wondering, no.

What makes Sherlock Holmes iconic? Oh, I dunno, could it be his powers of observation and his clever deductions? Reboot, don't reinvent. At least not if you want your central character to be Holmes and not some original character who happens to share the same name. Want a Conan Doyle character who might credibly swashbuckle? Try Professor Challenger instead. Or move further afield to Allan Quatermain. All of those characters have baggage, but I'm sure Guy Ritchie can blithely ignore it.

(Discovered via agilesreader.)

PS to all concerned: Hugh Laurie is already playing Holmes weekly, on American television. If he's smart, he'll find new territory.
It's horrific. It really is.

They really should leave Holmes alone - what's will all this "re-identification" crap?

And yes - I personally would love to see a new Quartermain film.
The Bond film is described as a "reboot" of the series, and a reinvention of the character. Though as jamoche points out below, the Daniel Craig Bond is the closest Bond we've ever seen to the one in the Fleming books. So it's not so much a reboot as a reset.

Anyway, that film was a huge success, so the concept is big just now.
No, no, no, no, and just in case you were wondering, no.

You speak for me.

Happy weekend, regardless of news of such travesties.
I agree with your no wholeheartedly.

The Holmes I know and love may have resorted to fisticuffs but he is in no way a swashbuckler.

There was a lovely essay someone linked me to comparing House and Wilson to Holmes and Watson. Wish I had bookmarked it so I could link you.
The parallels between Holmes & House are many and obvious. We see the number on the building House's apartment is in, and it's 221B, and therefore we know the parallels are supposed to be in our face that way. It's one of the reasons I love House :)
It's also missing the point of the Bond reboot, as that Bond was closer to the book-version than any since the second or third Connery movie.
Yeah, you're right. This jogs a thought in my head, though: the Brett Holmes adaptations were this "get back to the character of the source material" sort of reboot. Those adaptations were historically correct (none of this deerstalker cap travesty) and faithful to the plots of the Conan Doyle stories (when they strayed, I understood why, and they generally improved the source). So you re-imagine the character... where do you go with it? It's already at the source canon starting point. You have to take it somewhere else.
Well, the cocaine addiction will be right up his alley...

As far as I'm concerned, Jeremy Brett is/was Holmes. Can't be any closer, so what's the point in trying.
Does Holmes need a "reboot"? Not really. Does somebody need a cash infusion from a character they don't have to pay to use? Probably.
I'm okay with Robert Downey jr, he's a fine actor, but everything else about this horrifies me. I've seen two Guy Richie films both against my will and they were both beyond awful. He should not be allowed to get his clumsy paws on Holmes. Jeremy Brett nailed it, he is Holmes for me.

Allan Quatermain is an inspired suggestion, I'd love to see a decent film about him, and in an ideal world Alan Moore would write the screenplay.
Though maybe Moore doesn't get another shot at it, since The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen movie was kinda not great. And he's sort of notoriously bonkers. A straight take on Quatermain, minus the imperialism, would be cool.
I'ev always been surprised that nobody's tried to film 'The White Company' - but given this kind of thinking, I'm rather glad they haven't!

Holmes was an intellectual, capable of playing the bruiser if he needed to, but very much given to solving problems with thought rather than action. Less is more, in his case - subtle and understated strength of heart and mind. Even if he could straighten out a bent poker should the need arise!

Besides - if you turn Holmes into a man of action, what on earth are they going to do with Watson?

I have to say that Peter Cushing is probably my favourite Holmes - although Brett does come a close second ...
I've never seen Peter Cushing's Holmes! Though I've been aware of the series. The iconic role needs an iconic actor, perhaps?

I'd watch a film of The White Company. And The Black Company too, for that matter. Mud and blood.
No swashbuckling, please, we're British.

Rupert Everett and Richard Roxburgh have both played a superb Holmes. Apparently Roxburgh wasn't available to reprise the role and Everett stepped in, explaining why Ian Hart played Watson (brilliantly) both times. That had me confused for a bit.

Robert Downey Jr is a superbly talented actor, so I've no problem with him - if he can be Chaplin he can be Holmes. I shouldn't diss Guy Ritchie as I've never seen one of his films, but they do not appeal to me in the slightest. Fingers crossed it all turns out ok. It just so happens I'm in the middle of The Boscombe Valley Mystery right now...
You can swashbuckle! I give you... Peter O'Toole! It's just that Holmes doesn't swashbuckle. He ratiocinates. Well, actually, he has contempt for that fellow in the Poe stories. He deduces! He not only sees, he observes.

I like Downey as well. But I think the roles wants an iconic British actor. I'd take Laurie, even though I think it would be a retread for him.