Your Garage Best Books of the Month STEM nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc Samsung S8 Launch Limited time offer Luxury Beauty Handmade Mother's Day Gifts Book House Cleaning henriettalacks henriettalacks henriettalacks  All-New Echo Dot Starting at $49.99 Kindle Oasis Nintendo Switch National Bike Month on Amazon disgotg_gno_17
Customer Discussions > Movie forum

The Alibi Lounge

This discussion has reached the maximum length permitted, and cannot accept new replies. Start a new discussion

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 151-175 of 1000 posts in this discussion
Posted on May 14, 2012, 1:12:59 PM PDT
Kelly says:
A friend lives near a place that has old concert poster reproductions - including the biggest mockery of a travesty ever perpetrated. The Monkees - opening act, Jimi Hendrix..... that's like doing Hamlet, making Olivier Horatio - and giving the lead to Pauly Shore...

Posted on May 14, 2012, 1:14:56 PM PDT
Savage Lucy says:
Well Jimi did open for the Monkees. So it's not like somebody made that up. It isn't the only time the opening act was superior to the headliner, I'm sure.

In reply to an earlier post on May 14, 2012, 1:19:39 PM PDT
Hikari: In the original stories, Moriarty appears only twice, and is clearly depicted as much older than Holmes. In Young Sherlock Holmes, he was Holmes' math instructor. There is no question of Moriarty's genius in the original--as Conan Doyle says, "the Napoleon of crime." The new version, rather cheekily, makes him a consulting criminal--Holmes, in the original, styled himself a consulting detective.

You are, I think, misreading Sherlock's attitude towards Mycroft, and it is one of the few cases where a little more care (in future episodes, perhaps) needs to be taken. In the originals, Sherlock is quite candid about admitting that Mycroft is, if anything, more brilliant than he, but has the failing of being lazy--in part because he is a very fat man. (A genetic anomaly that pops up in Sherlock's son, by Irene Adler, Nero Wolfe, at least according to some Sherlockian scholars.) Making him more of a colorless bureaucrat is a bit of a wasted opportunity. Nothing makes either the original, or this Sherlock, feel inferior. Merely irritated at the pretensions of his older sibling. We have not yet seen a modern equivalent of Mycroft's club, the Diogenes, the oddest club in London.

In reply to an earlier post on May 14, 2012, 2:05:05 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 14, 2012, 3:33:31 PM PDT
Hikari says:
Yes, I recall the paucity of Moriarty from the original stories. He has somewhat sprung his proscribed boundaries and taken on a life in the popular culture that is far greater than his impact on the stories, really. He is consistently a menacing presence, if an unseen background figure, for subsequent film Sherlocks (Didn't he figure prominently in "The Seven Percent Solution"?) Also "Moriarty" has become synonomous with "nemesis".

Yes, this take is 'cheeky' all around. Sherlock and Mycroft have the irritation and contentious dynamic of squabbling siblings, with Sherlock being the more petulant one because he's the little brother. Since we are seeing Sherlock here as much younger than Conan Doyle introduced him to us, I think it's safe to say that this Sherlock exhibits more tendencies of a young turk than his esteemed incarnation on the page. Whining about interference from meddling older brothers, for instance. The equanimity about Mycroft's even more superior intellect comes later, with maturity, perhaps.

Colin Dexter, creator of Inspector Morse, tried his hand at a Holmes story called "A Case of Mis-Indentity". That was pretty cheeky, to write in the Conan Doyle style. Mycroft is featured, though he spends most of the case asleep in a chair in the corner, and yes, he's very fat. So it's a bit of delicious irony that the very tall, thin Mark Gatiss plays him in the show. I enjoyed the feature commentary by the two producers/writers, mostly because their energy together is very reminiscent of the Holmes/Watson dynamic. Wonder if that's what gave them the idea to recreate Sherlock? Mark is the Sherlockian figure to my mind, while his gruffer, more prosaic producing partner smells like Watson.

Posted on May 15, 2012, 8:05:29 AM PDT
H: According to the generally accepted chronology, Holmes was born in 1854, making him 27 in 1881--the date of A Study in Scarlet, the beginning of the collaboration. The period of Holmes' greatest activity covers 1881-1903, making him only 49 at the time of Watson's third marriage. It is interesting that most depictions in film make Holmes appear far older than he was--in this, the current series is actually very faithful to the urtext.

In The Seven Percent Solution (an interesting, if uncanonical take) Moriarty's criminal activity is the product of Holmes' cocaine problem.

There are literally thousands of Sherlockian pastiches--I have an entire shelf full of them. The most extended series was written by August Derleth, one of the co-founders of Arkham House, a close friend of HP Lovecraft and a key member of the Lovecraft circle, who wrote 56 stories about a detective named Solar Pons. They are worth the attention of anyone interested in Sherlockian literature.

Posted on May 15, 2012, 11:43:06 PM PDT
At 12:44 on the 15th, the world said g'day to little Eli (not so little at 8 pounds 8 ounces with hands that could crush a walnut!!).

Mum is doing well, and Dad (me) is smiling ear to ear. I don't know when I will be able to get back online, so I'll thank youz in advance for the congratulations and well-wishes.

Just when you thought it was safe on Earth, another Sloan enters the world!!



In reply to an earlier post on May 15, 2012, 11:47:39 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 15, 2012, 11:48:54 PM PDT
Toby and Mrs Toby,
That is lovely to hear that little Eli and Mum are doing well. Many congratulations and love and best wishes to you all!

In reply to an earlier post on May 15, 2012, 11:55:52 PM PDT
C McGhee says:
KKaS- another Slaon.

Congratulations on your new family member & if your face freezes in that smile well, you could do worse. :)

In reply to an earlier post on May 16, 2012, 5:10:35 AM PDT
Hikari says:
Congrats to the proud Dad and Mum! I'm sure he's a fine-looking lad, and now you have one of each!

Mazel tov!! Is your head wet yet? :p

In reply to an earlier post on May 16, 2012, 5:14:19 AM PDT
Hikari says:
@Mr. Smith--
Have you seen the Rupert Everett/Ian Hart case yet?

If Sherlock was only 27 for "A Study in Scarlet", then our Mr. Cumberbatch was actually 7 years too old. But he looked 27, I'd say. I guess one thinks of the Victorians being so much more mature for their ages than our current generation . . .Sherlock was born with a 40-year-old soul and seemed middle-aged even before he was 30. I need to dive back into those stories again. After I finish the Colin Dexter Inspector Morse mysteries, I will have to give that serious consideration.

Posted on May 16, 2012, 6:43:41 AM PDT
Cavaradossi says:
When I've read the Holmes stories he always seemed fairly young to me and I wondered why he was always portrayed as mid middle-aged in film adaptations. On the other hand, I think the need for actors and actresses to continue looking as though they are in their twenties or, at most, early thirties as they actually progress through their forties has helped infantilize the present and recent generations of young people, from teens into their mid thirties. We've all allowed Hollywood too much influence in our lives.

Posted on May 16, 2012, 7:04:51 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 16, 2012, 7:08:57 AM PDT

The day may not be all that distant when filmmakers will be able to generate entire films digitally. Not just animated films, but films that look indistinguishable from conventionally photographed movies. So they could continue to churn out Julia Roberts films, say, indefinitely, heedless of the actual aging process humans, even Julia Roberts, have to endure, unless they die young. Which is not to say moviegoers will necessarily take to such movies. Maybe our love for movies is indivisible from our fascination with the actual movie stars who star in them.

The younger movie audiences get, the younger the movie stars will be. Nobody's looking for the next Robert Mitchum or Edward G. Robinson or Spencer Tracy. They want the new version of Justin Bieber. (Or is it Beiber? I'm in the wrong demographic to know, much less to care.)

Posted on May 16, 2012, 7:09:23 AM PDT

Mazel tov! I am thrilled for you and was thinking of you and your family just last evening (the 15th my time). This is wonderful news and I will have a toast to you and your new addition later today (it is, after all, just past 7a.m. my time, and even I cannot justify a wee drink at this hour).

Great news and I am smiling a huge smile for all of you.

In reply to an earlier post on May 16, 2012, 7:59:55 AM PDT
WDE: Digital realism indistinguishable from reality is one or two technical generations away--perhaps 10 years, perhaps less. You may recall that Sky Captain inserted a digital performance by Laurence Olivier.

I doubt if we will ever not be fascinated by entertainment personalities. Unfortunately, they get prettier and dumber every day.

In reply to an earlier post on May 16, 2012, 8:05:32 AM PDT
H: I have seen the Everett/Hart film. I believe that I posted a review. Very enjoyable, but it has major problems within the chronology of Holmes career--sloppy research on the part of the writers. To begin with--since Edward VII is on the throne, it must be dated 1902 or later. Everett and Hart (who was a fine Watson) look far too young for Victorians pushing 50. 1903 marked Watson's 3rd marriage--not his first. Holmes did not smoke opium except when undercover for a case. Also, the texts strongly indicate that Watson weaned Holmes off of his cocaine habit during the 1890s. (According to Nicholas Meyer, it was Freud who did the trick.) I'd certainly recommend it, but from the viewpoint of a student of the canon, it is not as well written as it ought to be.

Posted on May 16, 2012, 8:59:50 AM PDT
Cavaradossi says:
William A. Smith

"....they get prettier and dumber every day."

All too true, though I sometimes wonder if all of them really are that dumb. Maybe there are actors who feel it isn't wise in today's Hollywood to appear smart. After all, you don't want to outpace your audience.

In reply to an earlier post on May 16, 2012, 9:09:27 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 16, 2012, 10:27:14 AM PDT
That we are fascinated by movie stars is borne out by the way the celebrity "voice artists" in animated films are giving such prominent billing. I suspect a lot of little kids, even, could name who who did the voices for Shrek and Princess Fiona, even though neither Mike Myers nor Cameron Diaz is ever shown onscreen. Often these people do a wonderful job, but I suspect the present-day equivalent of Mel Blanc might find it harder to get a foothold in the industry.

Of course, Blanc became a celebrity in his own right.

Posted on May 16, 2012, 10:01:32 AM PDT
Mel Blanc was one of the great actors in film history, period.

In reply to an earlier post on May 16, 2012, 10:01:49 AM PDT
Kelly says:
Congrats, Sloany! Good luck

Posted on May 16, 2012, 10:04:07 AM PDT
Cav: Well, the best way to gauge if someone has a brain is to listen to them being interviewed. In particular, I recall seeing an interview with Zachery Quinto, with the immediate reaction: "This nitwit is playing SPOCK?"

Posted on May 16, 2012, 10:20:33 AM PDT
Kelly says:
Well, they don't seem to worry about someone giving the impression of intelligence - think of Kutcher - on 2 1/2 Men, he plays a self made billionaire??? HUH??? He's cute enough, but intellectually, he seems like his job should involve a paper hat,....

Posted on May 16, 2012, 10:26:30 AM PDT
Mel Blanc always seems to be smiling in every photograph I see of him. And why not? He had the most enjoyable job anybody's ever had.

In reply to an earlier post on May 16, 2012, 10:49:03 AM PDT
Hikari says:
>>>Everett and Hart (who was a fine Watson) look far too young for Victorians pushing 50.

I don't know Mr. Hart's age, but Rupert was 45 years old in 2004 when that show was made. Admittedly, a well-preserved 45, because he looked a decade younger.

Our current pair are both a bit older than they look but they are about perfect as they are. I'd forgotten that Dr. Watson was THREE-times married; does not reflect very well on him, does it, and in that era too--how very shocking to have two divorces. Or is he widowed? That's the only way I can excuse three wives . . . unless the first two wives turned out to be perfidious s_l_u_t_s. Does Dr. Watson have more interface with the lovely Sarah (Zoe Telford) who appeared last season?

Dr. Watson's modern-day television descendant, Dr. James Wilson, has also been three times married . . . he falls deeply and hopelessly in love each time and it just never works out. His irascible frenemy House, who has a ringside seat to all the emotional carnage, has great sport over it. You'd think that a neurosurgeon might learn to be more distrustful of fleeting emotion over time . ..

Posted on May 16, 2012, 11:21:49 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 16, 2012, 11:26:13 AM PDT

Hmmm...three wives. Reminds me of Ben Cartwright on "Bonanza", who, if memory serves, sired each of his three sons by means of a different wife. Since they weren't all that disparate in age, seems like Ben married sickly wives each time. Or they each died in childbirth. Well, he DID need a lot of man-labor at the Ponderosa.

"You'd think that a neurosurgeon would learn to be more distrustful of fleeting emotion over time..." Reminds me of a great book I read, "When The Air Hits You Brain: Adventures in Neurosurgery." The author is a brain surgeon himself. He tells the story of one of his mentors, who was explaining to him once about how neurosurgeons have to be 100% committed to the task at hand, yet somehow detached at the same time. They can't function well when complications arise if they don't have that detachment. (That's why doctors don't operate on kinfolk, as a rule.) His mentor said "It's just one of those contradictions you just learn to The Flintstones' Christmas Special. How the (f-bomb) did they celebrate Christmas a million years before Christ was born?"

The last thing I expected to encounter in a book about neurosurgery was a reference to The Flintstones' Christmas Special...but I still chuckle when I remember this.

In reply to an earlier post on May 16, 2012, 11:32:42 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 16, 2012, 11:33:11 AM PDT
H: I am shocked, shocked, that you would assume that Watson was divorced. They died. Watson married his first wife, Constance Adams of San Francisco, on November 1, 1866; she died in late December 1887. The second marriage, to Mary Morstan, took place on May 1, 1889; she passed in late 1891 or early 1892, probably from heart trouble. (She fainted twice in The Sign of Four--an early indication of her fragile health.) I follow Baring-Gould's chronology. Watson, as a good C of E man, would naturally take "till death do us part" quite seriously.
Discussion locked

Recent discussions in the Movie forum


This discussion

Discussion in:  Movie forum
Participants:  53
Total posts:  10000
Initial post:  May 8, 2012
Latest post:  Jun 5, 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 9 customers