But back to my point, is Holmes in the books as emotionally complicated as Downey's portrayal? The movies I've seen all have Holmes are more stoic than Downey. Not a Vulcan or anything, but more controlled. So, do you think Law in the role would have dictated a less demonstrative Holmes?
----- Original Message ----- From: "Omari Confer" <clockwork...@gmail.com> To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, January 30, 2010 3:03:59 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] What if Actors' Roles were Switched in "Sherlock Holmes"? Law doesnt have the emotional depth to pull off Sherlock. Plain and simple. On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 12:14 AM, Keith Johnson < keithbjohn...@comcast.net > wrote: After seeing the movie last Sunday, I was wondering about the casting. Downey and Law are really good, but why did Ritchie cast them that way? Law, who's taller, a bit leaner, and has a bit more of an intensely thoughtful look, would seem at first glance to be the natural choice to play Holmes. At least, he probably on the surface appears closer to the tall, lean, serious Holmes of all those movies i saw as a kid. Downey, with his shorter stature, lined, worn face, large expressive eyes, and tendency to look comical, serious,and slightly "off" all at once, would seem to be a good fit for a slightly comedic Watson--the guy who comments/critiques/jokes from the sidelines as the oh-so-serious Holmes goes about solving the crimes. Indeed, i can see a time before Downey's return to such lofty heights, where another director would probably think it natural to cast the dapper and handsome Law as Holmes, and the quixotic Downey as his funny sidekick. Wonder how such a movie would have turned out? Would the casting have dictated a more traditional take on the characters? Would Rithie's slight twist on the traditional movie treatments of the characters still have worked if the roles had been switched? -- READ MY BLOG http://centralheatingblog.blogspot.com STRING THEORY http://stringtheory.podbean.com
