It seems that I was mistaken
: there are two
Holmes films in development.
One of them is the Sacha Baron Cohen, Will Farrell and Judd Apatow movie.
The other, directed by Guy Ritchie, is based on "a forthcoming comic book
" with a "more adventurous Holmes" and will star (wait for it) Robert Downey Jr.
So, Guy Ritchie's directing the less stuffy-more adventurous Holmes and they've cast the opposite physical type to the Strand
illustrations of Holmes, which should mean all kinds of wrong. But then... it's Robert Downey Jr. in the role. He can do brainy, quirky, actiony stuff, we know, we've all seen Iron Man
by now. But if you're going to make a movie about, like, a Victorian Tony Stark ("stuffy" is an adjective that has never been applied to Tony Stark)... please, have the good graces not to call him "Sherlock Holmes". Though, this means we can fantasy-cast Paul Bettany as Watson. ...*lightbulb* Oh god please someone write AU steampunk Victorian Iron Man. Agh! With mechanical men! Agh! "You have been to Afghanistan, I perceive." Agh! Crossover possibilities! Agh! Agh! Someone write this and I will love you FOREVER and bring you stuff from England and also my firstborn.
Because I can't let three whole posts go by without mentioning Doctor Who
, I'm duty-bound to report that it looks like 9.4 million people watched the finale
(and I wonder how many more online?) but the BBC felt it necessary to report in a separate article that the reaction to said finale was "mixed"
. I do enjoy how they report the plot twists as if all that stuff was happening to real people. And no spoiler warnings, in the headlines or the articles. There's this attitude of, "If you care, you've already seen it". Amusing. But not as fun as Anthony Stark, Esq., eccentric genius millionaire and builder of Living Mechanicals.