Talk:Sherlock Holmes (2009 film)

Gay Portrayl

http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/showbiz/article188076.ece

there has got to be a more reputable source, but this may be worth mentioning. 12.162.122.6 (talk) 20:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh come on, they clearly don't get the meaning of bromance... Alientraveller (talk) 21:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

"IT'S shockingly eleMENtary, my queer Watson." Christ...--EchetusXe 01:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Official site

I added a link to Sherlock Holmes Official Site although there's nothing yet but the title of the movie. --Mortrainey (talk) 18:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The article sounds like a press release

Just saying. 206.116.59.48 (talk) 01:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Dr Watson was not a "former soldier". He was a military surgeon, who had seen active service in the Indian subcontinent. I am glad that Jude Law didn't think it necessary to portray him as a bumbling fool. The 1940's version of Nigel Bruce was something of a buffoon, but no fool.124.197.15.138 (talk) 06:30, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

It is a worry when American's try to make a film on a classic British subject. It was more of a worry that the lead had obviously never heard of Sherlock Holmes. And even more worrying that the producer feels that the American's British accent is "flawless". I have yet to hear a modern American actor with a genuine-sounding British accent - they used to be rather better at accents before the "method" school meant that American actors mumbled and dissembled through their lines.124.197.15.138 (talk) 06:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Well not all British actors have rock solid American accents either. Very few are flawless, but not all. Anyhow, how does this help the article?--Mike Allen 06:41, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't. As a general rule, anonymous IPs don't have anything to say. That's why they're anonymous IPs: They can't be bothered. (Luckily, Wp coddles them more than named users so... here I am!!) 24.228.54.78 (talk) 20:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Hate to break it to you, but you're not anonymous. —Mike Allen 02:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I so clearly am. 24.228.54.78 (talk) 02:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

What could be added...

I saw the movie today and although it may not be important I think some of the movie has to do with Watson and his date and stuff like that. I think more than a little portion of the movie focused on that. At least I think so... Jasonxu98 (talk) 22:38, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Definitely. I updated it.--EchetusXe 01:42, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Scientific Explanations

[Editorial comment removed to article and put here on talk page instead.] -- Horkana (talk) 11:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

There are a number of scientific expltios given by Homes for the marvels performed by Lord Blackwood would anyone care to discuss them. -- by RichardBond (talk)

Ratings

"Sherlock Holmes" is a popular children's classic. The ratings of this film will be of particular interest to parents. Two different editors added this information to the article, and two others editors have edited and restored it after it was deleted by others. The information is properly footnoted. The burden of justification falls on those who would remove it. --Robert.Allen (talk) 23:09, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it does not stand up to Wikipedia's notability or worldview guidelins. I am removing and you must establish notability in order to include it. Sorry! Ratings must be notable, as in covered by third-party sources. I am failing to see why SH was rated PG-13 by the MPAA in the United States is notable, or why it would be important from a worldview perspective. If there is a third-party source available, feel free to re-add it. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 23:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Nowhere in the links you provided do I see that MPAA and BBFC classifications are non-notable. They are notable enough to have Wikipedia articles devoted to them. The information is displayed prominently at the beginning of almost all previews and in advertising for movies because of its notability. The information includes the UK and the US, the two largest English-speaking countries. How can you assert there is a Worldview bias? --Robert.Allen (talk) 23:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Because you are focusing on the rating systems of only two countries. Also, films are required to show ratings, not because they are notable. You can't say they are notable just because they exist. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 23:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

See here for third party notability. If the New York Times puts the information at the head of its film overview along with director and cast, it is certainly notable enough for the Wikipedia. --Robert.Allen (talk) 23:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

This is not coverage, it is just a listing. You need significant coverage, which is more than a trivial mention. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 23:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Please reread this section: Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content --Robert.Allen (talk) 23:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The ratings reference only the main page, then readers must type in Sherlock Holmes to reveal the ratings. Also, why is this notable? Were the filmmakers aiming at a particular rating? I mean what is the point? IMDb has all of this information. Oh and yeah you can also ignore a rule that prevents "improving" an article, but how is this improving it? —Mike Allen 23:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the link to the MPAA site you mention, there did not seem to be a way to directly link to the MPAA page that provides the actual rating, so I put in the best one I could think of. Including the rating improves the article by adding information useful to the reader. Just because it is available on other web sites, such as IMDB, does not mean it should not be added to the Wikipedia. (We wouldn't have much information in the Wikipedia, if this was a rule.) --Robert.Allen (talk) 00:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I know, that is my point—there isn't a way to directly link to the page. Also, again, why is notable, other than it being "useful" to the reader? If it was given an X rating and was then changed to a R rating, or was banned in a certain country. Then yes I would say it would be notable. But just to be useful to the reader? No. About IMDb, this is the same reason why we don't list every single production company or distributor for every country. The same applies to ratings—because we can't list EVERY English-speaking countries ratings. You can take to this to WP:FILM to see what others think. —Mike Allen 00:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The PG-13 rating is also given in detail at the bottom of the actual NY Times review before the cast and crew listing. I can use the link to that article. Its inclusion by the NY Times article is substantial coverage and sufficient justification for including it in this article. There is no requirement that the rating be discussed separately elsewhere in the article, any more than we require the length of the movie to be discussed as a separate issue. --Robert.Allen (talk) 00:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify why I reverted the deletion, the summary stated "Classification: removed section, not supported by WP:FILM)" which is a poor reason to delete a section. Failing Notability is a suitable reason to delete a section, although my personal preference would be to mark it as citation needed and challenge editors to show the section has some special notability. In some cases wildly different ratings in different countries can be notable. (The MPAA website is also woeful and not a useful source of anything.) -- Horkana (talk) 00:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

As I pointed out above the notability guidelines only apply to inclusion of articles, not the content of the articles. If two IPs took the trouble to add the information, and it is routinely covered by the mainstream media as an attribute important to their readers, it is certainly important enough to include in the Wikipedia. Also, the info box includes an item "Country" which lists United States and United Kingdom. The ratings from both these countries were included. I don't see this as a bias. --Robert.Allen (talk) 00:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Horkana, I should have been more precise. But I mean really, the reason it's "not supported" by the Film project, is for the reasons listed above. —Mike Allen 00:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The rating is also given as vital information by the Washington Post: "'Sherlock Holmes,' a Warner Bros. release, is rated PG-13 for intense sequences of violence and action, some startling images and a scene of suggestive material. Running time: 129 minutes. Three stars out of four." Sorry Mike, but your arguments do not seem to be supported by the real world. --Robert.Allen (talk) 00:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

These are all trivial mentionings, it is just listed. Coverage needs to be more than just a mention. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 01:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

You assert that but but do not support your assertion. If and when the NY Times and the Washington Post stop giving this information about films, then your assertion might be considered correct. Are "Warner Bros." and "Running time" and "three stars out of four" also trivial? No. Just you asserting that it is trivial does not make it so. --Robert.Allen (talk) 01:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Both The New York Times and The Washington Post are Wikipedia-qualified credible sources and have limited copy space, but their editors choose to include the ratings information. This is sufficient evidence that the information is nontrivial. We do not need to provide any more evidence to support that argument. If you disagree, I suggest you write letters to their editors and convince them of your point of view. --Robert.Allen (talk) 01:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

We are not NYT or Washington Post. It is a trivial mentioning. I also think the running time is not notable, but that is for another time and another place. The rating is a summary of there review, which is often but not always included in the reception sections, and the production company is clearly notable, as they produced the film. In no way is the MPAA rating notable here, nor the BBFC rating. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 01:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

As an English language film and an English production I can see reasons why the ratings for the UK and possibly the US might be included in this article. You make a good point that it is about as notable as the runtime and we include that, but hardly any film articles include ratings and consistency is important too. If you can give something to establish a little bit more notability I'd like to support you on including this but it doesn't seem like any of the reviewers are noting the rating beyond plainly stating it. Even a criticism that it is underrated for the level of violence or something small like that might be enough. -- Horkana (talk) 02:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Horkana. If there is a source stating that a (notable) reviewer (i.e., no forums, blogs, etc...) found that the rating was too high or too low, then I could see its inclusion. BOVINEBOY2008 :)02:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Everyone, everyone! This is already covered in the guidelines because this kind of discussion has happened in the past: MOS:FILM#Ratings. Unless there is something worth noting about the Sherlock Holmes film rating, it does not warrant inclusion. Erik (talk) 03:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Erik. That is what I have been trying to say, at least I think. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 03:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I just shifted my support for Robert Allen to away from his position after reviewing many articles on WP, and I appreciate Erik's mention of MOS:FILM#Ratings which I think supports the current position. Here is a copy of what I wrote on Robert Allen's user talk page

I regret to say that I have shifted my thinking on this. Regardless of vague policy, de facto WP has discussed movie ratings whenever there is a public controversy over the ratings. All of the following films have had their MPAA ratings discussed on Wikipedia

Last Tango in Paris

Crash (1996 film)

Boys Don't Cry

Kids

Swimming Pool

Gremlins

Tie Me Up! Tie Me Down!

Live Free or Die Hard

The Fly II

Eyes Wide Shut

Angel Heart

Dracula (1958)

Facing the Giants

Coming Soon (1999

In all cases there was public controversy over whether the rating was appropriate or over the granting of Adults Only to such a high-profile film. The closest we get to the issues you raise of Sherlock Holmes is the film Live Free or Die Hard since it is the 4th film a series in which the first three are rated R, but this one a mere PG-13. So the precedent of previous practice seems to be to discuss film ratings whenever there is a lot of public discussion about them. This has not in fact happened with the Sherlock Holmes films. There should be no surprise there. It has the same PG-13 rating as recent James Bond films and recent Star Trek films. I therefore respectfully state that I side with the majority, although I think it was technically incorrect to appeal to WP:Notability as that effects the existence of entire articles, and they should instead of appealed to WP:Indiscriminate. Sometimes editors make the right decision but appeal imprecisely to the wrong policy.

--WickerGuy (talk) 17:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Erik and WickerGuy have helped me understand the policy, and I can see why it is there. I suppose we are putting film ratings under category 3: "Excessive listing of statistics" which happens when every geographic rating area has to be included. But the New York Times includes them not only in the review of the film (at the bottom with details about why the particular rating was given), but also at the top of the "Overview" page. According to my dictionary an "overview" is a summary of main points. The Times includes the rating in a prime position at the top of the Overview page along with Director and Cast. So I don't agree that the rating itself can be categorized as an "excessive" statistic. It's just unfortunate that we would have to include so many to comply with the worldwide view requirement. --Robert.Allen (talk) 23:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Tower Bridge

The article was changed to say the bridge being constructed was Westminster Bridge rather than Tower Bridge because it doesn't make sense.

unfinished Westminster Bridge (Tower Bridge could not have been the correct reference. The three actors emerge from Parliament to the bridge; Tower bridge is ~3 miles away)

A fictional film need not make sense and allowing for artistic license the bridge could be the more dramatic looking Tower Bridge. It is unusual to have citations for the Plot section but this item probably needs verification, and I've also added a citation request on the note in the Westminster Bridge article about it appearing in Sherlock Holmes. Certainly it looks a lot more like the [pictures of Tower Bridge].
Now that I've noted the issue here I'm going to delete from the Plot section the editoral comment about how it must be the Westminster bridge. -- Horkana (talk) 22:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I've found at least one reference to assert it's the Tower Bridge. (Heck, even if the geography is wrong, the year is right: the bridge would have still been under construction at the time of the movie). Also, the chase could have gone through the sewers - or onto waiting boats and onto the bridge (cut in post-production). But basically there's no way it's similar-looking to the Westminster bridge. --MASEM (t) 23:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

It is definitely Tower Bridge. For the following reasons:

• They pass the bridge under construction earlier in the film and discuss it being the first combined bascule and suspension bridge, which type of bridge Tower Bridge is.
• A shot of the Palace of Westminster before Blackwood's appearance in the Houses of Parliament shows Westminster Bridge in the middle ground as complete with vehicles crossing it.
• The film, like the stories, is set in the 1880s or 1890s by which time Westminster Bridge, built in the 1860s, was finished.
• Tower Bridge was not under construction in the 1860s, but between 1886 and 1894. File:Tower bridge works 1892.jpg, already on the Tower Bridge article, shows the bridge in September 1892 with construction somewhat further advanced from the depiction in the film (span of pedestrian walkways completed and stonework underway).

--DavidCane (talk) 23:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Great. Thanks for clearing that up. I didn't think it was Westminster bridge but wondered if I was missing something and perhaps the other editor who changed it knew something I didn't. Now I feel I, and any other editor have more than enough information to revert if anyone tries to change it again. It's odd to have citations in the plot summary (and the review does just assert rather than prove it is Tower Bridge, so maybe that citation will be dropped later) but it is good to have things clear and unambiguous like a good encyclopedia. I hope we can consider this case closed. Thanks again. -- Horkana (talk) 04:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Budget could not possibly be 18 million.

The source isn't online, but I wouldn't believe it in any event. I mean, c'mon. Is that a typo? They couldn't have hired the actors for that much. Either find a better source, or delete the budget until a reliable source can be found.Xfpisher (talk) 18:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Well it seems such references are allowed on Wikipedia. Personally I do not like citing magazines and books. Why? How are we supposed to verify it? Take the person who added the reference word for it or go out and buy the book or magazine? I understand that not everything is on the internet, but most is. Also we can't add a site you must pay to view as a reference, but books are Ok. I don't get it. —Mike Allen 19:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

None of the sites like box office mojo, IMDb, etc, are listing a budget for this film. Guy Ritchie is on record as saying it's his biggest budget film by far--therefore bigger than Rocknrolla, which IMDb says had a budget of--wait for it--18 million dollars. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE49074020081001 It's ridiculous to leave that budget up, because of a cited source that is clearly incorrect, and can't even be checked--and might possibly be a matter of somebody misreading the article in question, and taking Rocknrolla's budget for Sherlock Holmes'. Seriously--it's IMPOSSIBLE for Rocknrolla and Sherlock Holmes to have been made for the same amount of money. If that were true, they'd be bragging about it all over the media as we speak. There is nothing in Wikipedia's guidelines that says you have to tell people what a film's budget is, even if you don't know. 180 million is more like it, but for the moment, we just don't know what it cost to make it. Is somebody going to delete that obviously inaccurate quote, or should I? Xfpisher (talk) 22:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's just wait to see what others have to say. —Mike Allen 22:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Marketing campaign

Some resources for the marketing of the movie:

• Variety
• Marketing Magazine

Q&A with Robert Downey Jr.

Might be useful in the casting or production section: The hollywood reporter