When is a Sherlock not a Sherlock?

by Toni L.P. Kelner

So my daughters and I were watching a DVD of the Nicktoons show Wolverine and the X-Men, and naturally conversation turned to how continuity had changed with this version. Iceman is the same age as Shadowcat, though he was originally older. Jean Gray is missing in action, Rogue is with the Brotherhood of Evil Mutants, and Emma Frost was apparently never part of the Hellfire Club. But of course, the biggest change was making Wolverine the leader of the team, rather than Cyclops or even Storm.

I've now lost about about ninety percent of you, haven't I?

I'll move on past the movie X-Men: Wolverine, because I haven't seen it and don't want you to think that all I think about is comic books. Instead let's try something a little more familiar. Have you seen the new movie Star Trek? Kirk as a punk, Uhura spending more time communicating with Kirk than her console, and a much funnier Scotty. The planet Vulcan and Spock's mother gone, Kirk's father a distant memory, and Chekov with an even heavier accent. And while Leonard Nimoy shows up, William Shatner is nowhere in sight.

I've lost you again, haven't I? 

Okay, let's bring it back to mysteries. What do you think of early footage from the new movie Sherlock Holmes, with Robert Downey Jr. as Holmes and Jude Law as Dr. Watson? It's definitely going to be a new vision. A much punchier Holmes, and a much better looking Watson. Sexual innuendo. More overt drug use. Martial arts. We aren't talking Basil Rathbone, or even Jeremy Brett.

But is it still Sherlock Holmes?

Lately I've seen a whole lot of series and franchises rebooted and reinvented, from James Bond to Iron Man. And of course there are plenty of reasons why. One is the commercial: building on a known name, while adding new excitement. Another is pure love for the characters: I can't imagine myself ever getting tired of Kirk or the X-Men, let alone Sherlock Holmes. Lastly sometimes the creators just want to shake off the dust of old continuity, and do something different.

That got me thinking about how far a new version can stretch from the original, and still be true to the original. What can you change, and what must you keep?

Obviously, the X-Men brand has gone through all kinds of changes, just from the various comic books artists and writers over the years, let alone the movies and animated shows. So I'm pretty forgiving of that. You can change the ages, and the costumes. As long as there are mutants in spandex, they've got the right powers, and certain heroes stay heroes, I'll play along.

Speaking of mutants, Star Trek has mutated a lot already, with six TV series so far, plus movies, novelizations, and comic books. As long as the Federation is in place, and somebody yells "Phasers on stun!" I'm willing to give it a shot.

For Sherlock? Sherlock has to be scary smart, I need it to be in Victorian London, and I insist on rational solutions the mysteries--no woo-woo in my Sherlock Holmes canon. He doesn't have to wear the deerstalker cap and Inverness cape all the time, as long as they show up at some point.

But I'll tell you this much. If they ever trim Wolverine's claws or Spock's ears, or dump Dr. Watson, then they'll have gone too far for this gal geek!

Comments

[chris]

Isn't there a hidden "problem" too - that for some people this will be their first meeting with Sherlock Holmes and hence their subsequent reference point.
Do we have a responsibility to preserve the creators original?

[Toni LP Kelner]

That's a good point, Chris. It's been so long since I encountered Sherlock that I forget about the fresh encounters.

I guess then the question is what part of the original work is most important to the character? Could we make Watson a woman and still be true to Holmes? Not hardly. But maybe the martial arts stuff will work.

[Sheila Connolly]

To my mind, Sherlock Holmes will always be Basil Rathbone. No argument. But I'll try to give Robert Downey Jr. the benefit of the doubt (if I can just manage to forget all the original books).

I could handle the characterizations of the current Star Trek characters, more or less (but don't ask me to outline the plot). The only thing that bothered me was that Spock's mother was most definitely around for the original series. Another time warp?

[Toni LP Kelner]

Shelia, the new continuity is an alternate universe. They talk about it a little in the movie, though it's kind of buried in the explosions. The splitting point was when Nero showed up and the ship with Kirk's father was destroyed. In the original continuity, Kirk had a happy childhood with both parents. And of course, Spock's mother and Vulcan were around for a lot longer.

The only remnant of the old continuity in the new is Spock Prime. (That is, the old Spock played by Leonard Nimoy.)

But we're going to have to disagree on Basil Rathbone. Though Rathbone was terrific, I prefer Jeremy Brett.

[Susan Neace]

When I read the Bee Keeper's Apprentis by Laurel King, although she deviated from the accepted canons, she really gave me back the Sherlock Holmes character I had remembered from the original books and made him vibrant again. I love that series. The most disturbing continuity problem for me with the new Star Trek is that when I originally watched the series, Spock and Kirk were old guys in their 20's when I was a teenager. Now they are young enough to be my grandchildren.

[Mary]

Susan, I feel the same way about Beekeeper's Apprentice and the rest of the Mary Russell books. He's the same Holmes, but also a more real one.

I haven't seen any clips of the new Downey film, but I think I'll like him as Holmes. One of my favorite movies is Young Sherlock Holmes, where Holmes and Watson meet as teenagers. So, as far as movie continuity, the duo as younger men than they're usually portrayed works for me.

[Dana Cameron]

I'll watch Robert Downey, Jr. play any role and he has the edge I think Holmes should have.

Victorian, yes; scary smart, yes (I can do without the deerstalker). IMO, I think any number of interpretations can be made, as long as the text (and in this case, the historical context) informs them. If you play with the canon, you need good reasons for the choices you make.

[Hank Phillippi Ryan]

Who was it in Seven Per Cent Solution? He was good, right? Oh--Nicol Williamson. And I loved that movie.

I like Robert Downey, I think he's a good actor. And I think if they respect the character--it could be really wonderful.

We all picture Sherlock Holmes as Basil Rathbone, because that's what we grew up thinking. We also grew up with music on records, and three TV networks.

I agree, Chris, there's a responsibility to preserve the creator's original. Yes. Well put.

But that's not Basil Rathbone, right?

Transition is interesting. And sometimes wonderful. So. It'll be fun to see. Hey. Should we go see the movie together?

[Annette]

I agree with you Toni, I prefer Jeremy Brett.

[Charlaine Harris]

You all come down here, and we'll all go together.

[Toni LP Kelner]

You know, it would make a funny kind of promotional event. "MWA writers from around the country converge on Magnolia, AR for the first showing of "Sherlock Holmes.""

[Donna in Dallas]

I've always had that thought whenever I see adaptations of the Jules Verne novels. They always throw in a good looking damsel (or two) even if the book was all testosterone, all the time.