It’s Elementary: Crowe not Watson, Depp not Riddler
UK tabloid based rumors swirled over the weekend that Russell Crowe would play Watson opposite Robert Downey Jr.’s Sherlock Holmes in the upcoming Guy Ritchie film based on the Arthur Conan Doyle characters. That’s all well and good, but it’s another tabloid lie. Ritchie himself tells Empire “I don’t have a Watson.”
Meanwhile, Cinematical puts to rest talk of Johnny Depp as Riddler, but then you never really believed that one either, did you?
Now if someone could just retire those Quentin Tarantino/Faster Pussycat Kill Kill rumors.
Filed under: Rumors
Tags: Guy Ritchie, Johnny Depp, Robert Downey Jr, Russell Crowe, Sherlock Holmes
Related Posts: - It’s More Kill Billierer
- QT’s FP!K!K! - LiC says: BS
- Brad Pitt: Actor, Father, ‘Bastard’
- Tarantino Rumor Mill in High Gear
- LiC Rides the Quentin-Go-Round
Crowe would probably be a solid Watson.
Depp-as-Riddler and Jolie-as-Castwoman (or Cher for that matter) needed to be put to rest. For one thing, Nolan hasn’t been that predictable yet. Gary Oldman as the strait-laced cop of the saga? Heath Ledger as The Joker?
I’m sure Depp would be particularly excellent in that kind of role, but it seems so obvious.
Agreed, Alexander. Nolan seems to like to go for respected-but-somewhat underestimated actors in key parts, at least for the younger roles. Johnny Depp would be great, I’m sure, but that’s not exactly imaginative casting; it’s the choice any and every studio hack will be clamoring for him to make. I see him going with someone like Guy Pearce again, or say, Paul Bettany. Wonder if Nolan’s a Buffy fan…I could see James Marsters (Spike) in a Dark Knight sequel.
As far as no Crowe in the Guy Ritchie film, I’m ok with that. I’m still sorta turned off by the idea of a Guy Ritchie Sherlock Holmes film. I like my Holmes (with or sans Watson) pretty traditional, not rock ‘n roll.
Well, I’ve already stated my opinion about Batman 3 (if there is one). Depp, Philip Seymour Hoffman, and all the other suggestions that have been made via rumor would be great but I’d hope that Nolan would continue to cast talented and respected lesser knowns, or known but not A-list, as he’s been doing. TDK has hit and passed the 500 million mark already. The franchise seems to be doing just fine without A-listers to draw the box office. :-)
I’m leaning towards your take on Holmes jennybee. Recent comments (from Ritichie or Downey, I forget which) indicating they were going ina more ‘action’ direction give me pause. But I have to say…Downey makes me interested regardless of whoever is Watson. Crowe would’ve been an interesting choice, but what are the odds of him playing 2nd banana?
And I agree with Alison and JB’s sentiment regarding Depp. He’d be fine, but he’s the unimaginative goto choice for characters. He’s like the male version of what Angelina Jolie was for a while.
Craig, I don’t even have to state that I’m interested in Holmes because of RDJ. Everyone knows it before I comment. :-)
Am I iffy about the movie? You bet. The ‘action’ angle for Holmes could work or could be a bust. As for Guy Ritchie I probably have the same reservations as everyone else about him.
[Depp is] like the male version of what Angelina Jolie was for a while.
Perfectly summed up.
[Depp is] like the male version of what Angelina Jolie was for a while.
Ah, how fleeting is acclaim … one decade you’re everybody’s quirky, underused gem, and the next … Angelina Jolie. Oy!
And I think Downey Jr., will do fine as Holmes, but here’s hoping Ritchie doesn’t make him into an action star. Susan Downey’s comments that “he’s a badass in this movie alright” don’t sound encouraging.
(for the record I still like Depp and Jolie both. A lot.)
Me too, Craig. Me too.
ANGELINA and JOHNNY are the cat’s meow and whiskers.
Respectively.
Craig, Jolie is awesome. I think she’s an excellent actress despite all the hate and am looking forward to Changeling, if for nothing else to see her performance in it.
But her overexposure in the media has had and is still having a negative backlash effect unfortunately.
Don’t get me wrong … some of my favorite actors are Angelina and Johnny … What if they got together? Would they be Johngelina?
Johngelina.
Nope. It just doesn’t have the same ring as Brangelina.
We often disagree on actresses Miranda so I’m glad we can enjoy a little detente on Angelina.
Deppelina.
Deppelina is even worse.
hahah…I’m content with the Brad and Angie pairing…but then I’m the guy who enjoyed Mr. and Mrs. Smith.
I reported the Crowe-Watson casting at AD as if I’d read it in the Gospel of St. Guy. Turns out it was the Gossip of St Guy.
When evaluating imaginary news, I think it’s always good to have the actual person being gossiped about making up the gossip himself.
In defense of that UK tabloid, when hundreds of major newspapers around the world were reporting as fact that Christian Bale punched his Mum in the face and twisted her nipples, the UK tabloid was saying, “Oh, rilly? we heard from a friend of the daughter of a guy who works in the hotel that all Bale did was raise his voice to the silly hag and tell his graspy barnacle sister to sod off.”
So I went with the story that I wanted to believe, and turns out, it was right.
News, schmews. Facts, schmacts. The world would be a more interesting place if we stopped listening to so-called “news” and created our own reality based on what we want to be true.
The New York Times today is printing as front page news the questions about Sarah Palin that were being gossiped about by Kossacks at the Daily Kos 4 days ago.
I have no faith in the news telling me the truth of what’s happening. I don’t believe much, except what I see.
And if I keep visualizing Crowe as Watson, then it’ll happen, dammit.
The news was telling us all weekend that Sarah Palin was “an inspired choice!” and “a game changer!” They pounded those words all weekend hoping the fiction would take root. Now she’s looking like a disaster, but the idiotic chyron questions persist: (”Will Hillary voters suddenly decide they’re not so sure about this whole ‘pro-choice’ thing and start teaching their kids about creationism and a world where condoms don’t exist?”) No. Not unless they believe the news.
Wait, what were we talking about? Oh yeah: the “news” can eat my ass.
“When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.” — that’s Sherlock fucking Holmes, bitches.
;-)
Do we, Craig?
In terms of female actors, I think it usually has more to do with who I actually think has beauty, charisma or sensuality.
ANGELINA not only has all of those IN SPADES but she has a great deal of talent as well.
Sometimes you remind me of my dad or my kid brother, Craig. I don’t always understand what you see in these babes.
Though It doesn’t affect my great affection for you. AT ALL.
But then you’re the guy that said you don’t find KIM BASINGER or LENA OLIN sexy.
Hah hah…..
I’m proud of my out of the margins attraction for women Miranda. They are eternally delightful in all their shapes, sizes and configurations. I have a particular thing for the ones that aren’t traditional beauties.
Ryan, I’m the guy who insisted that Brad Pitt wasn’t going to be in Inglorious Bastards. That’s how skeptical I am and how frequently wrong.
As you point out in the Bale case (I believe a tabloid first revealed LaBeouf wasn’t at fault for his recent accident as well), sometimes the tabloids are right. For every Cher is Catwoman story, they toss out a nugget of truthiness to keep us guessing.
The problem is that the Internet is so instantaneous, if you wait until something is established as a fact, it’s old news. What’s a conscientious blogger to do?
My favorite way is to take the middle ground: pass it along with skepticism. That way you can’t lose. Cowardly, but effective.
“News, schmews. Facts, schmacts. The world would be a more interesting place if we stopped listening to so-called “news” and created our own reality based on what we want to be true.”
The Bush administration did this for eight years. Worked wonders for them.
Wasn’t it the frIggen Enquirer that broke the John Edwards story? I hate to lose confidence in the Fourth Estate, but I’m open to input from the Fifth estate too (and consider myself part of it).
The scary thing: It’s not that the National Enquirer was the outlet who knew about this. They were just the only outlet willing to out it.
I saw within a few hours of posting the Crowe-Watson thing that it was shaky and unsubstantiated. If it had been a more important story, I would’ve gone back to clarify, but it was basically filler on a slow day.
Also, I know if I’m wrong I’ll soon hear about it. And already our smart AD readers have pointed out the story didn’t stand up. That’s how an un-conscientious blogger like me handles it — I depend on the comments of our readers to keep me in line.
I’m not trying to win a Pulitzer. I’m just trying to have fun.
***
Sorry if the first comment above sounded uptight or defensive. It was intended to be jokey. This crazy paragraph might’ve been a tipoff:
…except, that’s sort of how I really feel. I wrote that to be absurd, but I’m more comfortable in my own reality than the one the media tries to make us inhabit.
The best way to avoid becoming media-managed lemmings is to realize 90% of what they feed us is pure fabrication too. So why shouldn’t I try to fabricate my own reality?
That’s my minuscule contribution to the collective consciousness.
Thing is, nothing gets time to gestate any more. One moment you’re thinking of someone, the next everyone and their mother gave their opinion on the internet. It’s like the whole test-screening process is going on while and even before filming now, and it was bad enough when it just happened when the movie was almost finished. Democracy just ain’t the right system to make movies with…
…of course, I just did a post on who I‘d propose to play Watson, so I’m participating too. Oh well.
Joel, the Bush Administration was able to maintain the illusion of that distorted reality with the help of a complicit media. That’s what I’m saying. The reality that got broadcast to the hinterlands was the false one.
They were trying to sell us a fake product. Millions of people bought it. Millions of others didn’t.
And anybody who thinks we’ll find out exactly how many millions are counted in each camp is still living in the reality the neo-cons created. Because they’re still controlling the major sources of “information” and telling us what the “popular opinion” should be.
They’re ones telling us what the numbers are.
“Democracy just ain’t the right system to make movies with” I agree!!
Art should be a more totalitarian system in my book. Yet, that would effectively put me out of blogging since blogging is democracy in its truest form.
What’s scary Ryan is that the so-called established media are getting more and more like the Enquirer.
What’s going to have to happen is that people are just going to have to get smarter. We can no longer rely on the same filters weeding out bogus or useless information before it gets to us. This can technically be a good thing, but it puts a lot of responsibility on a lot of people who, in my opinion, just aren’t up to the task right now.
An action packed Sherlock Holmes movie? They tried that with terrible results in the 80’s at the height of Spielberg getting every director in town to do one of his productions. Maybe y’all have blocked out YOUNG SHERLOCK HOLMES…who knew that Holmes was Indy Jones in a different hat?
Guy Ritchie bores me. All of his work.
“Democracy just ain’t the right system to make movies with”
That’s part of the genius of the auteur theory, isn’t it? and the major reason directors like Fincher, Anderson, Nolan, Soderbergh, and the Coens turn out such consistently superior work.
They’ve each found a way to operate outside the influence of executive “notes” and focus group suggestions. They’ve established their reputations as relative outsiders, and carved out a position of strength from which they can listen to input from outsiders, and then have the power to say, “yeah… no.”
(btw, Joel. I’m pretty sure we’re agreeing with each other, but that would be hard to prove at a glance. I think we both have a way of phrasing things that make our positions sound contrarian ;-) )
In many ways Ryan, particularly when it comes to Anderson, Soderbergh and the Coens, they are almost critic proof in my book. I’m a total apologist for all three of them, but I really do just love what they serve up and the fact that it is largely their vision. Like it or not. Even one of their misfires is preferable to me over a focus-grouped, executive memoed to death, lowest-common denominator movie. Any day of the week. Theyre making the movies they want to make rather than the movies they think I want to see, and I love that kind of facism.
Christian, you have to admit that scene where the stained glass window comes to life was pretty goddamn cool.
Craig, could you please explain about art hypothetically being a totalitarian system?
So you like dictatorships? What gives?
While I’m here I’d just like to state for the record that some of us traditional beauties need appreciation occasionally as well. Without sufficient worshipping we’d…DIE.
Or something.
Don’t get me wrong, I loves me the traditional beauties too. I’m just a bee what likes all manner of flowers is all.
As for art facism, deep down I genuinely believe most people (LiC readers accepted of course) are too stupid to know what’s good for them and that movies are a constant tension between the demands of a mass (and massively stupid) audience and the forces of creation. Every once in a while, they hit the sweet spot and get it just right, but more often they deliver crap or great stuff that doesn’t make any money.
Art should not be determined by popular vote. None of the great works of art in history were done for the masses. They were always done for some rich guy (with a traditionally beautiful wife).
That’s not to say I don’t like popular entertainment too. Hell, that’s at least half of what I talk about around here, but things that are clearly made with the voice of one or two people melt my butter more than the film-by-committee movies.
In my perfect world, I would be the rich guy (with or without the traditionally beautiful wife) commissioning the Soderberghs and Coens to make movies just for me. I would give them free reign.
I think I’m rambling on tangents. Does that answer your question?
Methinks this rich dude was one smart fella.
Yeah, I do understand what you’re saying, Craig. That was a forcefully profound analysis.
Totally….
I must admit that I laughed out loud - SEVERAL TIMES - over the “…I genuinely believe that most people are too stupid to know what’s good for them and that movies are a constant tension between the demands of a mass (and massively stupid) audience…”
Hardy har har. *Ahem” Har har.
Emphasis on the word STUPID.
Well, I’m definitely for democracy in all forms. But since you put it THAT way, Craig…
I certainly agree wholeheartedly with the ideas you’ve put forth. Much as I adore Mr. Soderbergh, it would be WOODY ALLEN and NEIL JORDAN for me.
Seeing as DAVID LEAN and STANLEY KUBRICK are dead.
Like that……….
.
The names may be different, but you appreciate the idea of a single artist with a vision and that’s what I’m getting at.
And as with women I want to be clear I like movies that come in all shapes and sizes, but the auteurs are the most nutritious and rewarding for the soul.
(before I start sounding too snobby, this would be a good time to point out that I enjoyed Traitor and Hamlet 2)
Yes, Ryan, we definitely do. I was just taking the opportunity to mock our great media overlords of truth, honesty, and the American way one more time. Again.