dilbertschalter wrote:Well, before the Rathbone-Bruce movies Watson was usually not even included- just having him included was an enormous step forward, even if his character was irritating.
As I said, though, I appreciate the films for what they are. Should Watson not have been such a bumbler and a meager caricature of his actual self (and, should the films themselves be even remotely Sherlockian), I would be able to have some real respect for them as films--outside of the fact that they are purely pastiches. Instead, I really only appreciate them as vehicles for the character and its lore. There's no doubt in my mind that the films were very influential, and, due to their popularity, likely aided greatly in keeping the age-old Holmes relevant in a world where technology was evolving greatly year after year. For that, I am thankful.
Speaking of which, it's about high-time ITV/BBC invest in another series. It's my dream to have the entire canon filmed (perhaps even in order, though this is one of the great fallacies of having such a diverse Canon as ours that jumps time-frames frequently) faithfully. I understand adding filling-out scenes and the like (as, if done well, they can even greatly improve an adaptation), but I very, very strongly prefer that the endings and overall details remain faithful. This is where the problems begin, however. Studios are obviously under great pressure to produce whatever will see a surplus on their end in the ratings game, so it's not realistic at all to expect any sort of complete, faithful canonical adaptation series anytime soon. A very knowledgeable and passionate producer would be required to helm the project, and I think that the late John Hawkesworth, who was responsible for the Granada adaptations (at least early on), is a fine example of this. There were many, many changes throughout the series, but earlier on, the stories remained mostly faithful and for that they do deserve much commendation.
This is where the discussion always leads: Who would play Holmes in such a series? I have literally no suggestions at all, but a lot of people mention Jonathan Hyde for whatever reason. Even gaining any sort of approximate effect to that of Brett will be a feat unto itself, so it will be interesting to see who is chosen to play Holmes in the next canonical adaptation. Should they wish to film the entire Canon, I would very much like them to find a Holmes who is just to their 40's, but obviously has charisma and that sort of undefined maturity as an actor.
There are many ways such an idea can go wrong, as very rarely (with how the British television market is) do the same staff members stay on board for an entire show's run. David Suchet, the popular and definitive Poirot, for example, has gotten into quite a mess with the recent Poirot adaptations (or at least that would be the consensus). The only Poirot adaptation I have seen in full from the recent years is Cards on the Table
, which was from 2005, I believe. It was so painfully wrong
that it really pushed a few of my buttons, some even simultaneously. Suchet has been saying for years that he wishes to film the entire bibliography, but I would hardly consider this doing so, simply due to the ridiculous changes that are being made. Suchet, however, remains today as incredible of a performer as he was in the beginning. He's captured the great Belgian so well, both in form and personality, that you simply can't resist seeing him in-character whenever the opportunity arises.
For the record, I personally believe Rupert Everett and Johnathan Price were both fairly terrible as Holmes, with the latter slightly edging out the former.
Dreams, dreams, dreams...