To start with a placement of this matter in context, I shall have you know that Sir Doyle is to me what J.K.Rowling is to what is arguably a vast majority of my generation. When Potter fans were boarding their first train at nine and three-quarters at King's Cross, I was witnessing the discovery of a reagent to identify blood stains in the chemical laboratory of a hospital a few miles away; when they were collected by the fireplace in the Gryffindor common room, I was watching puffs of tobacco smoke swirl away into non-existence in a cluttered room on the first floor of a London residence; as their heroes were on their numerous trips through the castle under an invisibility cloak, mine was all but invisible as an old woman, or perhaps a priest, or a servant in the household of Charles Augustus Milverton, anything, anyone; when they were flying around their open castle grounds on brooms and invisible flying horses, I was in a hansom, darting across the Thames on one of its many bridges through fog as blinding as darkness itself; as they were battling three-headed dogs, I was hunting a single-headed one on the marshes of Dartmoor; as they witnesses the Dark Lord go down to a tame disarming spell, I was at the top of a waterfall in Switzerland watching one of the greatest minds in the world plunge into the torrent below.
And finally, as Potter fans are feeling sad that the movie franchise has also come to an end, and more so that the last one was quite a bit of a disappointment (at least I thought it was), I am more or less furious about what Guy Ritchie has done to one of the greatest and most memorable literary characters of all time. Of course, Guy Ritchie is a great director; in fact, Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels is one of my favourite movies. He can handle an ensemble cast like no one else can, and his ability to put together twists, action and an almost comic narrative is unmatched as far as I know. Not that the movie (Sherlock Holmes) was bad - it was quite good. Just that what he did to Holmes in it is quite unforgivable.
To begin with, Irene Adler was brought in - she is a very remarkable character, one of very few to outwit Holmes, and the movie does little justice to her by presenting her as Moriarty's crony. I believe that even involving her was sort of a mistake, as appearing in only one short story and being mentioned for her brilliance in but a few other places lent her a certain esoteric quality that the movie took away.
Next, Robert Downey Jr. made for a very bad Holmes. I could hardly identify the character I am very familiar with. A lot of things were amiss somehow - the manner, the voice, his physical build, etc. But then, I'm being a bit of a snob here - I don't think I can hope that every portrayal will be as good as that of Jeremy Brett's in the TV series (which, by the way, was very good and quite honest too).
Also, there was too much action in the movie. As the title reads, Holmes is not Bond, and while Doyle's stories were often sensational, there was a boat chase in one of the novels and The Final Problem exists, explosions were never part of them. Yes, he was an expert single-stick fighter, champion boxer and knew Japanese wrestling, but Holmes does not need to shoot bad guys to solve a case and has hardly ever done that, one instance being that guy who tries to shoot poison darts at him and Watson in The Sign of Four.
Because of these and a few other reasons that I cannot recollect now, I felt the movie was very unfair to Holmes and his fans. In fact, I had guessed it would be so as soon as I saw the movie's trailer. And I'll tell you why I care - a lot of people today haven't read Doyle's work. While they are greatly accustomed to Holmes being the archetypal detective owing to the character's immense popularity and the uncountable references made to him in various forms of media, they do not know him for what he really is, for they have not read the original works - this is a sad but curious fate that Holmes shares with Dracula. This being so, it is reasonable to believe that many of those who are exposed only to the movies will come to believe that this is what Holmes is - a boxer with Max Payne style slow motion powers instead of the forensic genius that he is, and hence would not understand his being an honorary fellow of the Royal Society of Chemistry (yes, he is a fellow - for real, not in the stories), and that shall be a great source of worry to me.
I saw Guy Ritchie's movie quite some time back, actually. The reason this came up now is that I have come to hear that he's making another one. Again, having seen the trailer, I'm not really looking forward to it. Apparently, Adler is still there, and this one shall have Professor Moriarty more in the open. The only good thing I see about it is that Stephen Fry is being cast as Mycroft Holmes who, as you may have noticed, is my favourite character. The role should fit him well, and it would have been really swell if only they had brought in Hugh Laurie as Sherlock Holmes too, for that would accomplish two things that should be very exciting - the possibility of an honest portrayal of Holmes (he's had loads of practice in House, you know) and the great comedy duo of Fry and Laurie starring together again.
