Tags for this video have been changed from 'Sherlock, Holmes, BBC, Coffee, Molly, Hooper, Lipstick' to 'Sherlock Holmes, BBC, Coffee, Molly, Hooper, Lipstick' - edited by lucky760

The American version will star Jonny Lee Miller as Holmes in New York (I think he's playing an American Holmes as well, not "these are Holmes's adventures while in America"). The show will be on CBS and is called Elementary. I don't think it will be a full Americanization of the show, like Office or Being Human, but just doing the same thing, a modern day Sherlock Holmes, just based in America... of course CBS could still opt out if they don't like the pilot...

>> ^lucky760:

Thanks for not being too arrogant to provide a short description. There is surprisingly little info about the show, but I was able to find all six episodes available for download. Thus far I've seen the first and enjoyed it rather thoroughly. It's exactly my type of show. And I love Jim Canterbury as Dr. Watson. I wonder if Sherlock was originally conceived as a homosexual.
Are you saying they're working on creating a US version of this BBC series?
>> ^RFlagg:
Really? Sherlock is a great show... you should be sure to check it out. If you have Netflix instant, the first season is on there... and on PBS Masterpice page for free if you don't have Netflix.... Only 3 episodes to a season (2 seasons so far), each about an hour and a half long.
I don't think I'll be able to do the American remake of Sherlock though...

Bachelor film project 2011 from The Animation Workshop.

As long as anyone can remember, the coming of The Undertaker has meant the coming of death. Until one day the grim promise fails and tension builds as the God fearing townsfolk of Backwater wait for someone to die

By: Bo Mathorne, Tue T. Sørensen, Arthur Gil Larsen, Rie C. Nymand, Mads Simonsen, Thomas H. Grønlund, Esben Jacob Sloth, Martin Holm-Grevy

Bo Mathorne - Director
Arthur Gil Larsen - Animation Lead
Mads Simonsen - Technical director
Thomas Grønlund - Animator
Rie Nymand - Animator
Esben Sloth - Art Director
Martin Holm-Grevy - Environment lead
Tue Toft Sørensen - Animator

Music composed and performed by:
Sons of Perdition

Voice actors:
The Tramp: Zebulon Whatley
The Minister: Lucien Dodge
Bubba: Phillip Sacramento
Towns people: Laura Post

Supervisors:
Michelle Nardone - Production supervisor
Katrine Talks - Production supervisor
Jessie Roland - Animation supervisor
Christian Kuntz - Animatic supervisor
Patrick Voetberg - Editing supervisor
Sunit Parekh-Gaihede - CG supervisor
Jared Embley - Rigging supervisor
Thomas Christensen - Sound supervisor
Svend Nordby - Technical supervisor

Consultants:
Peter Albrechtsen - Sound design consultant
Michael Valeur - Story consultant
Andrew Harris - CG Consultant
Mads Juul - Animatic consultant
Saschka Unseld - 3D animatic consultant
Anna Kubik - 3D animatic consultant
Jericca Cleland - Story consultant
Marec Fritzinger - Design consultant
Tomm Moore - Design consultant
Lawrence Marvit - Design consultant
Niels Bach - Background consultant

Thanks to:
Lasse Niragira Rasmussen - Additional animation
Jeppe Bro Døcker - Additional animation
Morten Thorning - Moral guidance
Oliver Kirchhoff - Scripting
Those Poor Bastards - Inspiration
Robert Bennett - Voice work
Lostandtaken.com - Textures
Friends and family

Lock Stock and Snatch are two of my favourite movies. And to hell with the naysayers, Sherlock Holmes was fantastic

The future is today! The past is tomorrow. The present is yesterday.

>> ^toferyu:

The futur is tomorrow today :-o

Sherlock Holmes?

Feh, these days we use gaydar.

hence the "FX" in the corner...I'm a regular Sherlock fucking Holmes

I've been looking forward to this for about a year! So glad the trailer is finally out!

Anything with my favorite actor Tom Hardy (watch him in Wuthering Heights and Olver Twist and you'll know why) and Benedict Cumberbatch (amazing as Sherlock Holmes) will grab my attention.

@SDGundamX I find some logical lackings in that example.

First off, the machine difference. If I shoot someone, the gun is technically doing it but the person controlling it held liable. If I run someone over with my car, that is even more abstract, as the car is being controlled by a wheel which I then control, yet, I am still liable. I don't see any other legal justification for the difference in this case, unless you are saying machines like alarms need to be held liable in the same light that citizens are. There is no compelling logical distinction to make an alarm that makes a false alarm any less liable for those whom programmed it than one who shoots a gun which has an E-trigger. (devils advocate here, I obviously don't have a problem with false alarms being protected speech)

I also beg to differ about intentionally. The only provable intention of speech is what is said. If I say fire, the only thing you can actually prove is that I said fire. You can't show that I meant to cause a panic, you can't show that I saw fire and said fire. You can't pretend to know, beyond a reasonable doubt about intentionally of speech, it is ALWAYS circumstantial. Intentionally of speech doesn't pass our own critical evidence criteria. I can't actually believe this legal framework even exists. ( Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. I do not salute you!)

And the "is dangerous" can only be use in an a posteriori sense, not an A priori sense. For example, what if I yelled fire in a crowded theater but instead of panic, only laughter was had? What if I steped on a pair of pliers, yelled pliers in my reaction and people thought I meant fire, and someone else screamed fire? I am liable for causing a falsity of a fire claim? Or what if I yelled pliers guess someone would think I said fire and cause a panic for me? It is all very very wishy washy for matters of A priori laws. You only know if something as abstract as speech will be dangerous after it has been said. You can try and make good judgement based on past experience, but that is no grounds to create A priori laws for words and conditions.

Let us look at the example again. A man was taunting a dog, like a god damned fool no less. However, the action resulted in no harm. So, I ask, where is the danger? It is theoretical danger of a sort that didn't happen in this case, yet, he is still guilty of a crime of danger. A danger that didn't exist is the crime for which he stands guilty, a mockery of justice. There are MANY things that I do that don't have a useful purpose as far as the greater good of society. Are you saying that only rights that do good are to be allowed? Are we to have enumerated rights now instead of enumerated restrictions? The kind of document I always took the constitution for is everything is fair game...you don't have to justify any action, ever. The exception to that is just that, the exceptions. We restrict the absolute freedom of people to harm other people, but as for everything else, it is allowed even without proper justification for its existence and participation. It seems a tenancy for people whom create moral laws to abide by this logic, but only sometimes; when concerning an issue that evokes a certain kind of emotional response thing change. For other issues that their heart strings don't match up with, they won't accept the heart string justification of others, saying they are creating a theocracy or separation of church and state or some other non-sense (not that the separation is non-sense, but that other peoples moral claims are any less valuble because they come from religion is preposterous, and insulting).

I think it is pretty unfair to characterize the judge in the way you have. He basically has the a slightly different position on the first amendment than yourself, most likely revolving around the core arguments I just set out (I don't know that, though). I don't think me calling you the same thing you called him; IE "not knowing how the first amendment works" would be fair either, because it is fair to say that throughout legal history, the decisions handed down from the courts have been contradictory in many regards. I could name 3 other case law examples where this should be protected speech, but throwing around case law is just silly, I am resolved to say this is a very convoluted subject...and more so than should be. We should seek some clarity in a legal sense of what the first amendment is all about, philosophically, or else this debate will never end to any non-contradictory, case by case way.

Edited for grammarerar

My only regret is that they can't really have Ian Holm replay Biblo... I suppose they could have CGIed him to death, but it would have been wonderful to have him somehow play it through... It is nice they have him playing Old Bilbo, but I'm just sad he couldn't do the whole thing... He's Bilbo damnit!

Also, Saruman cameo at the end there, win.

How is this anything like Sherlock Holmes?! What fucking detective work and observational analysis is being done amongst these explosions, gunshots, and cross dressing!??!

>> ^shinyblurry:

A classic example would be the Hittite Empire. Critics of the bibles historicity used to claim that it was made up and didn't exist..until its capital was unearthed in 1906.

Please provide some evidence of this supposed denial, which while cute in a urban legend sort of way, smells of classic christian revisionism rather than fact.

>> ^shinyblurry:

It's not a question of whether the bible is historically accurate, because that has already been proven conclusively.

I question it, so it is obviously questioned. But as to it being proven, by whom and when? You continue to assert this without the slightest bit of evidence.

>> ^shinyblurry:

The question is, what will it take for you to believe the very obvious fact that the bible refers to real people and places?

Sometimes it does, and so do Doyle's novels about sherlock holmes, that does not make either of them historically accurate.

>> ^shinyblurry:

the general history it recounts has been proven time and time again. Never once has it been seriously disputed, and skeptics have been forced to backtrack from their claims for centuries.

There is no reason to believe that anything said to happen in the bible before the Babylonian Exile ( you know, the actual historical event with Cyrus and all) is the slightest bit historical, if you have any EVIDENCE to counter that I would be interested to get actual verifiable links to it.

The Wikipedia entry on the Bioethics of Circumcision is surprisingly good. If you're interested in this topic, I'd consider it a must-read. My own opinion is in line with Holm (2004) who states that in regards to this issue, what people couch as ethical questions really often is just a mask for their cultural prejudices.

she's pretty... channeling a little katie holmes

Good stuff.

I don't really even have to make stuff up. There is so much perverted goodness in Christian mythology. Lot and his daughters, David and Bathsheba and Onan would all make great porn stories. Although, in general, God seems to prefer snuff to erotica. >> ^shinyblurry:

So this bizarre interpertation wasn't really a vehicle to share religious porn titles you've sat around and dreamt up in your spare time? Okay, turn about is fair play..
Richard Dawkings, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris in The Big Bang
The Flying Spaghetti Monster in Oodles of Noodles
Julia Sweeney and Eddie Izzard in ewwwwww
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
This has much in common with 80's porn - The soft focus lens (smeared with holy Vaseline?), the cheesy music, the improbable story line and the terrible acting punctuating the longer hardcore theological gyrations. I think this would be more effective with Marylin Chambers and John Holmes. "Repent, heathen! On your knees and prepare to receive your new Lord and savior." You could even do a sequel and call it "The Second Cumming." How about a trilogy? "Spare the Rod, Spoil the Twins!"
I don't know. This is just off the top of my head, but I think there is some potential here.