Holmes and Watson. What a waste of time and talent.

I really tried to go into it with an open mind.
I like most of what John C. Reilly does, especially lately.
And some of what Will Ferrell does.

But this film really let both of them down, again, especially John C. Reilly.

There was no real story, just an hour and a half or so (seemed much longer) of really bad jokes and prat-falls.

I am not even going to compare it to Without a Clue, it come no where near that wonderful comedy.

Lots of great talent Holmes and Watson, but I am sure most of them are sorry to have to put this one on their resume.

Seven Degrees of Sherlock Holmes - Who would have thought, Jim Nabors.

If you grew up in the 60's, you knew who Jim Nabors was. Either from his sit-com or from his singing.

Jim Nabors, 1930-2017 had an uncredited part in,

'Take Her, She's Mine' 1963

Which also featured Robert Morley 1908-1992

Who played Mycroft Holmes in 'A Study in Terror' 1965

So, there you have it, there you are.

Exclusive! - From our man on the ground in Hollywood. Yea, Right! -SHIN

EXCLUSIVE: After faring so well together in Talladega Nights and Step Brothers,Will Ferrell and John C. Reilly are re-teaming in another Sony Pictures comedy. They’ll star in Holmes & Watson, with Etan Cohen directing a script that is inspired by the Arthur Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes tale, but with a PG-13 comic bent similar to their past collaborations. Ferrell and Reilly have been looking for several years to find another opportunity to work together, and now they’ve got it. Ferrell will play Holmes and Reilly will play his faithful wing man, Watson.

The studio originally bought the script with Ferrell attached to do the movie with Sacha Baron Cohen, who costarred with Ferrell and Reilly inTalladega Nights. That stalled. The project came back together very quickly over the past few weeks under production president Sanford Panitch and chief Tom Rothman; when scheduling slots opened for all parties, Sony seized the moment. They are planning to go into production right after Thanksgiving. The film will be produced by Mosaic and Gary Sanchez. Cohen, whose comic scripts include Idiocracy and Tropic Thunder, made his directorial debut on Get Hard, the comedy that starred Ferrell and Kevin Hart.

Now, this is hardly the only Sherlock Holmes project in circulation. There is the Guy Ritchie-directed Sherlock Holmes franchise with Robert Downey Jr and Jude Law, the CBS seriesElementary with Jonny Lee Miller and Lucy Liu and the Benedict Cumberbatch seriesSherlock. The feeling is those iterations have stoked worldwide awareness for the characters, and hopefully will create an appetite for a full out comic version of the super sleuths, anchored by a couple of stars who are two for two in the hit column together.

Jonathan Kadin is overseeing for Columbia, Chris Henchy and Jessica Elbaum are overseeing for Gary Sanchez. Ferrell, who is coming off the hit Daddy’s Home, is repped by UTA and Mosaic; Reilly, next seen in Kong: Skull Island, is WME and Framework, and Cohen is CAA and Mosaic.

Source

It's not time to hold your breath yet. . . .

'Sherlock Holmes 3' movie news indicates that a script could be nearing completion

Virginia D'Cruz

|

Monday, April 18 2016

With the last two "Sherlock Holmes" movies starring Robert Downey Jr. doing better business than expected and helping build interest in the film franchise, there have been rumors that the third movie is in the works.

The last concrete news about "Sherlock Holmes 3" was during 2015, and since that time, the movie has not been green lit. During that time, there was talk that the script was being crafted for the third movie, but since then, official news about the movie has been scant. IGN also quoted the producer of the film series Lionel Wigram stating that a script was being worked on. Right now, this could mean the script is possibly finished and more details pertaining to it could be released soon.

Importantly, the two "Sherlock Holmes" movies that Robert Downey Jr. has been part of were directed by Guy Ritchie and they managed to reboot the franchise successfully and make it more interesting. There has been a lot of interest in series and films around Sherlock Holmes recently; in fact, the TV series "Sherlock," which stars Benedict Cumberbatch as Sherlock Holmes and Martin Freeman as Doctor John Watson, has also been doing very well, but as with the film franchise, most of the interest is focused on the two central characters.

Therefore, if the "Sherlock Holmes 3" is announced, it will have to include Robert Downey Jr. playing Sherlock Holmes and Jude Law once again stepping into the shoes of John Watson. Right now, however, there are no indications that Robert Downey Jr. has enough time to devote to a third "Sherlock Holmes" movie as he is tied down with the superhero flicks in the Marvel franchise.

Meanwhile, the news that the script for the movie is being developed is welcome and there are indications that it could be based on one of the original stories penned by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle who created the books. Law and Downey Jr. have expressed interest in working on the third film so it is likely that if and when it is announced, both these actors will be on board.

source

Seven Degrees of Sherlock Holmes - George Kennedy

George Kennedy was one of myall time favorite character actors.
He past away last month, and this SDoSh is for him.

George Kennedy (1925-2016)

was in 1973's 'Lost Horizon' 

which also featured the late great Sir John Gielgud (1904-2000)

who, as we have already shown, was in 1978's 'Murder By Decree'

So, there you have it, there you are.

A delightful Sherlockian surprise - 'Cottage to Let'

Once again in my quest to watch war time British films, I came across this pleasant surprise viewable at Amazon Prime for free.

Filmed in 1941, set in Scotland, a mystery/comedy spy intrique set on an estate with, as the title claims, a 'cottage to let'.

Early John Mills and an always excelletn Alastair Sims, along with a 15 year old George Cole carry the film.

Watch it to catch the Sherlockian connections.

From pre-war cartoon strip to war time pin-up, pin-up to HOUN - The 'Jane' comic strip of Norman Pett - sort of a SDSH

As I am often doing research about WW2 and my dads time in service I often find some very fun things along the way.
And if they have anything to do with art or cartooning I find them even more interesting.
Most of the time these cartoons were used for either instruction manuals or as morale busters.
Some were sometimes used for both.
Bugs and Mickey even got drafted for duty during the war.

I came across one not to long ago that is a lot of fun.

Jane by Norman Pett started in 1932 as sort of a wager. And continued well after the war.
She did however do her part during the terrible conflict.

 Usually at some point in each strip Jane would end up in only her undergarmnets.

 However there was a point after the beginning of 1943 where she fell out of the bath completly nude and then that trend continued.

Pett's wife was his first model until she decided to take up golf (why you have to give up one to do the other I will never know).

She was followed by Chrystable leighton-Porter, who also did a strip show as Jane and would also in 1949 make a movie about Jane's adventures.







The Jane strip lasted until 1959 with a couple of attempts after that to revieve the strip in one form or another.




So, what does this have to do with Sherlock Holmes you ask?

Well in 1982 a young actress by the name of Glynis Barber brought Jane to life on TV.

Glynis would also go on to play the part of Beryl Stapelton in 1983 Hound of the Baskervilles.

So, there you have it, there you are.

Mr Holmes - a wonderful journey

I am a little surprised this film has received so little attention in the world of Sherlockiana. I found it a wonderful surprise.

Based on the book 'A Slight Trick of the Mind' by Mictch Cullin, the film explores the mentally diminished Holmes as he nears the end of his life, trying to remember his last case that sent him into retirement.

As Sherlockians most of us have images of Holmes later in life.
Most also would not like to think of him with his mind failing, retired and for the most part alone in Sussex.
Better that he go out with a bang on one last case, with the only reason it wasn't recorded was because Watson had preceded him on that final journey.

This film finds Holmes at 93 seeking solutions to slow down his dementia. He is often times a crusty old curmudgeon, most times rude and impatient with his long suffering housekeeper. He is however not without humor and the subtlety of that humor provides some of the best moments of the film.

The film opens with a wonderful train scene as Holmes returns from a war torn Japan where he was seeking another remedy for his affliction.

As his dementia advances Holmes is trying to document that last case before he can no longer remember it's conclusions at all. A task he is finding very difficult.

While in Japan he is also reminded of another encounter he had had with his hosts father many years before.

The plots of either of the two cases has to take the backseat to the wonderful portrayal of the elderly Holmes by Ian McKellen. Mckellen does an incredible job of showing a man who is at one time fearful of his condition yet resigned to its outcome. His character goes back a forth between a complete Holmes and one who gets lost due to his dementia and the fear that goes along with it.
He is hansome as the aged detective in the flash back scenes at times reminding one of Brett in his precious manner and subtle humor. His time as flashback Holmes is very elegant.

The times when McKellen's Holmes was commenting on Watson's writings was a treat and not an insult like a modern version of Holmes does now. There was a respect to what Watson had down and much of what we now know as iconic to Holmes is treated with humor. I loved the line, ". . . penny dreadfuls with elevated prose.” And,  “an embellishment of the illustrator”.

His time as aged Holmes with dementia shows glimpses of a character we could recognize as Holmes fading in to a man who is lost in his own body.
We see glimpses of his observation skills, while realizing at times he can not remember the names of the people around him.

The film ends with Holmes if not finding redemption, then perhaps at least finding solace.

Ian McKellen's Holmes should go down as one of he best Holmes portrayals on film.

Milo Parker as the young Roger, son of Holmes' housekeeper, totally nails his part as the inquisitive young man who eventually becomes the elder Holmes' side kick and companion in bees. His performance is spot on without any of the over acting we often see in kids performances. His part is not big, but it does leave a big impression.

Hiroyuki Sanada as Tamiki Umezaki again gives a very subtle yet substantial performance.
I first liked his work in Last Samurai and once again he does not disappoint. I ended up feeling very sorry for his character because neither resolution to his 'case' was a pleasant one.





The cinematography is fantastic, as is the costumes and sets.

The film however is not without flaws.

Laura Linney as Mrs. Munro is under used and we don't get to explore her character enough.
However, some of her characters interactions with Holmes were very telling about their relationship and really helped with the explanation of Holmes' character and her desire to leave his service.

The performance by Nicholas Rowe as 'Matinee Holmes' is overly melodramatic for a Holmes film filmed at roughly the same time as Rathbones reign as Holmes. Or perhaps I should say that the film in which Rowe played the Matinee Holmes of overly melodramatic . I would have to say that probably had more to do with the direction of the film than in Rowe's performance skills.

It was however fun to watch McKellen's Holmes observation of the film.

I had read a few IMDB reviews of the film where the reviewer complained hope how slow the film seemed. Matter of fact that was usually the only complaint. If you compared it to a Robert Downey Jr. Sherlock Holmes then yes, it would appear very slow.
But if you considered the subject matter that was being dealt with, it was far from slow.

Like I said earlier, this should rank among one of the better Sherlock Holmes films that does not deal with the Canon.

Even on my second viewing I am enjoying it as much as I did the first time. Rarely does a film compliment a book so well.

For these reasons and many more I can fairly give it'

SHIN or should it be BCIN -The War Magician

Benedict Cumberbatch has Leading Role in New World War Two Drama “The War Magician”

Actor Benedict Cumberbatch has been made famous by his role in Sherlock, the BBC’s modern-day dramatization of Sherlock Holmes. He’s now starring in a new World War Two movie drama called The War Magician.

Cumberbatch is expected to take the lead role and star as a stage magician who, during the war, helped to make things vanish in support of the Allied war effort. The first time the idea for the drama came about was back in 2003. Tom Cruise and producer Paul Wagner got rights to the book by David Fisher and had backed Peter Weir to direct the film.

Plans and progress stalled over many years, but in 2012 the producers engaged a different director, Marc Foster, to direct the movie. Unfortunately, he dropped out, and a new director has not yet been connected to the project.

See the rest of the story here.

Some good stuff on Gillette, with a couple of good pictures.

Shaken, Stirred and Elementary: ‘Sherlock Holmes’ and ‘Thunderball’

Here

As if Sherlock Holmes wasn't enough . . . . .

In 1922, Conan Doyle showed O'Brien's test reel to a meeting of the Society of American Magicians, which included Harry Houdini. The astounded audience watched footage of a Triceratops family, an attack by an Allosaurusand some Stegosaurus footage. Doyle refused to discuss the film's origins. On the next day, the New York Times ran a front page article about it, saying "(Conan Doyle's) monsters of the ancient world, or of the new world which he has discovered in the ether, were extraordinarily lifelike. If fakes, they were masterpieces".^[5]

In April 1925, on a London-Paris flight by Imperial Airways, The Lost World became the first film to be shown to airline passengers.^[6] As film stock of the era was nitrate and highly flammable, this was a risky undertaking on a wood and fabric-hulled plane, a converted WW1 bomber, the Handley-Page O 400.

This is the first dinosaur-oriented film hit, and it led to other dinosaur films, from King Kong to the Jurassic Park trilogy.
Writer Doyle, also the creator of Sherlock Holmes, appears in a frontispiece to the film, absent from some extant prints.

 In 1998, the film was deemed "culturally, historically or aesthetically significant" by the Library of Congress and selected for preservation in the United States National Film Registry.

What did they do for you?

Lets face it, ever since his very first appearance in Beeton's Christmas Annual, outside influences have been effecting our image of Sherlock Holmes.
Obviously for early readers of the Canon, the first illustrations first shaped how Holmes was perceived.
And the first time two readers of the Annual or the Strand got together to discuss aspects of the stories, discussion and 'higher Criticism' started to affect our thoughts and images of Sherlock Holmes.
It can probably be said that out of all the fictional characters out there, none have had more written about things that were not written about in the books.
So many of our discussions about the Canon are about filling in between Doyle's wonderful lines.
And if we are in anyway involved, whether in printed form or face to face, in discussions, we can't help but be influenced by that input. Some more so than others.
Many we totally disagree with, while others give us pause for thought and reflection, and, in the end, fill in some of the details of Holmes' character and personality.

I first became familiar with the printed Holmes in 1977 while spending September in an old fishing/hunting camp in the back woods of Maine. I was alone for a month with the nearest town a two mile lake crossing and a twenty one mile road drive away. There was no electricity, and looking back on it now fondly, I had to read what ever books I acquired in town by gas light.

Even though that was really my first meeting with Holmes, I still had images from the Rathbone movies to give the characters faces. Rathbone was of me fathers era, but his face had been in many adds and Sunday matinees of my youth.

I don't recall if by 1977 I had actually seen any his Holmes films, probably had in part, but I knew who he was and that he played Sherlock Holmes. For many years he was the face of Holmes for me and he still makes up part of it.
But he never actually made me think anymore about Holmes. His mannerisms never made me reflect on whether or not the Canonical Holmes would have been like that in anyway other than his image.
I must confess that at this point in my Canonical career I was unfamiliar with anything called 'higher criticism'.

In about 1988 I was introduced to Sherlockian discussion with the forming of a local scion society.
It was at these meetings I learned there was more to these stories than what was just between the two hard covers. There was actually filler material Doyle never wrote about, and probably never cared about, but that we find addictive.
And along the way, much of that filler material has shaped our perception of Holmes.
Even the material we choose to discard sometimes makes us examine the perception.

And that leads me to my point of this post.

In any way have the last three most talked about Holmes portrayals, Brett, Cumberbatch, Miller, affected in any way your images of the Canonical Holmes, or at least made you examine something a little differently?

Let's start with Brett.

Over the years Brett has become my favorite film portrayal of Holmes (especially his early years). It didn't start out that way. It took me a little while for that affection to grow. At first I thought the portrayal was a little to melodramatic and staged (which has been argued by others).
But eventually when taking the episodes in review with the Canon I really started liking his performance.
Eventually, through Brett, I came to appreciate the humor in Holmes.
Every once in a while the twinkle in his eye would show a little bit of the man in Holmes that was seldom glimpsed.
It will always be a shame that he never got to do all the stories.

While I still think Benedict Cumberbatch's 'Sherlock' is still the best thing to happen to the world of Sherlock Holmes in a very long time, his portrayal is the one I wrestle with the most.
While I find many aspects of his performance 'spot on' to an image I have of Holmes, many of the quirks the writers write in to his Holmes I find irritating. Irritating in a good way in that it makes me examine even more the foundations I have under my Holmes.
Unfortunately some of the irritating quirks have become the foundation that much of the 'fan' fanfare is based on.
But even that makes us examine our views, so is therefore a good thing.
While the latest generation of Sherlockians, old and young, are probably quite pleased with the time and setting of 'Sherlock', it could be argued that there are not many of the older generation Sherlockians who do not wish Mr. Cumberbatch would do Victorian era Holmes.
(Keep our fingers crossed for Christmas.)

Benedict's portrayal of Holmes was easy to embrace in the beginning, but probably provides less sustenance as it goes along.
So, while I love 'Sherlock', and the show has brought up much good discussion, I have found the show has done little to change or adjust my image of the Canonical Holmes. I think it even lacks the depth to make us even compare it very deeply to the Canonical Sherlock.
We can however imagine Benedict's 'Sherlock' in a deerstalker and Iverness cape.

It can probably be said without much argument
that 'Elementary' is the most criticized and controversial of the new main stream interpretations of Sherlock Holmes. And not without good cause.
But I think it can also be argued that it offers the most in Canonical discussion since Brett for the real (you can decide what is real) Sherlockian.
Although much of what is portrayed in 'Elementary' we find if not disgusting at least offensive to our image of Holmes, it has been brave enough to force us to examine aspects of Holmes life that we often don't want to think about, or that we have neatly put away some where safe (for me that would be the constant reference to his drug habit). The show dares us to think about the dark side of Sherlock's personality. And sometimes we don't like what it makes use think about. I have respect for the show in that it makes me want to think about the Canon. Miller's Holmes has added some depth to my Sherlock.
While much of Miller's portrayal makes me examine the Canonical Holmes, he will never be the image of Sherlock Holmes for me. I can't imagine him in a deerstalker or Iverness cape.

It would be fun, and educational, and maybe impossible to have a class of students. all with little knowledge of Holmes and have them all read a few of the same stories and without conversation between themselves, then write down their images of Holmes. Everyone I imagine would be slightly or greatly different.

It could probably be argued that Robert Downey Jr. should be added to this discussion, but, for me, his films, although fun, would not stand up to this discussion unless we were talking about portrayals of John Watson.






I must admit here that what ever conclusions I have come up with from any of these portrayals have been helped along in some cases by discussions with learned (and some not so) Sherlockians.

Have any of these modern portrayals had any effect on your interpretations of Holmes, good or bad?  Are there others that have?

Okay, wait for it. . .

Posted March 19 2015 — 4:54 PM EDT

First BBC’s Sherlock, then CBS’ Elementary and now Fox is getting into the Sherlock Holmes game too—sort of. 

The network is near a deal to order a new series called Houdini & Doyle, a supernatural procedural (think The X-Files or Sleepy Hollow) that teams characters based on two historical figures—Harry Houdini (the master escape artist) and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (the creator of the master detective).   

Here’s the official description from Deadline, which broke the news: “Two of the great characters of the 20th century — Houdini, master magician, escape artist and paranormal debunker, and Doyle, creator of the world’s greatest detective and a paranormal aficionado — grudgingly join forces to investigate crimes with a supernatural slant. Although they’re both rich, famous and brilliant, they’re the original odd couple, with Houdini believing in nothing, Doyle in everything.” 

Apparently, Houdini and Doyle were friends in real life so that part, at least, isn’t a stretch. The project is going straight to series and is fromThe Librarian creator David Titcher, House creator David Shore and writer-producer David Hoselton.

source

You gotta love the photo's here!

Well, here.

Do you agree?

10 Best Sherlock Holmes Film Adaptations

36 pictures of your favorite or not so favorite Holmes and Watson's

Source

Did anyone catch the obvious nod to Sherlock Holmes in. . .

Mr. Peabody and Sherman?

Special night for St Louis local Sherlockians who can make it.

With the International Sherlock Holmes Exhibition in town, some of our local Sherlockians have arranged a fun night for all those who can make it.

Post in comments if you need more info.

Hi all,

Here is the latest from the Sherlock Holmes Exhibit.

As you know, I have been working to get a 'local Sherlockian' presence at the November 7th "First Friday' event at the Science Center.  I have copied below my previous text on that night.  Anyway, I can now report that WE HAVE A ROOM at the Science Center that night.  The Conference of Sherlockians will begin at 9:00 pm in the A-B Meeting room downstairs at the Science Center.  This will give you time to view and participate in the exhibit (you'll need a good couple of hours), then meet together to discuss the exhibit, then finally attend the viewing of the final BBC 'Sherlock' episode in the Omnimax theater at 10 pm.  So it will be a COMPLETE evening of Sherlock Holmes.

There will also be a table display for local Sherlockian scions which is being created by the Center (free of charge) with some help from me.  So those in attendance can take shifts manning the table and discussing aspects of our meetings that might attract new-comers.

We need at least 10 Sherlockians to get the Group Rate of $12.00 per person.  This will pay for your admission into the exhibit.  The room and the Omnimax are courtesy of the Science Center.  

So let's get this together for the common Game of all scions!  Please either send me $12 to reserve your spot or RSVP on email and PROMISE and SWEAR on the lives of all the Violets in the Canon that you will pay me back and I will pick up our tickets.  Unfortunately, I cannot be there due to a contractual commitment with my band that night.  But I will arrange this and have the tickets available for all of you at the ticket counter in the Science Center.

Schedule for November 7:

ARRIVAL 6:30-7:00 PM

EXHIBITION Immediately following

CONFERENCE OF SHERLOCKIANS 9:00 PM in Meeting Room A-B downstairs

SHERLOCK Viewing in the Omnimax 10:00 PM

On the exhibit, it is VERY impressive!  I know some of you have already been there to check it out.  They could use more volunteers, especially if you have period clothing.  They like that so much they hired actors to wear Victorian attire in the exhibit.  It's all very cool!

The International Exhibition of Sherlock Holmes - St Louis Science Center

As St Louis Sherlockains we are lucky that our Science Center is one of the host cities for The International Exhibition of Sherlock Holmes.
I am luck enough to have a little time off of work and was able to attend it yesterday.

 Unlike Holmes, I can not start a 'case' without a good breakfast.
So, since we were in the area we hit a St Louis landmark, 'Courtesy Cafe' . . .

 But, like Holmes, I do need a good assistant.

 Several blocks around the Science Center had banners and signs advertising the exhibit.
And since this is right along Hwy 70 it should get peoples attention.

 Sign along the side walk.

 Waiting in line to use the phone.

 Inside advertisement.
A little hokey but okay.

 After handing over your tickets, you walk into the gallery. The first, as should be, is devoted to Doyle, Victorian medicine and the creation of Holmes. For the older Sherlockains amongst us, there could have been a little bit more about Doyle, but what they had was a good introduction.

Poe is also give some credit for being an early founder of the form.

 Early medicine and its tools.

We were not allowed to use flash, so I could not get the photos I really would have liked.
This display shows Bells teaching gown and some of his letters. There was a very good nod to Dr. Bell. And a very good painting of him.

 The displays were very well done and very well lit.
Some were just around to set the theme, while others were relevant to the display.

Here is assistant with London street window, which on the other side was part of Baker St.

 After the displays about Doyle and Bell, we came to a section on the manuscripts and how they appeared in publication.

There were many first additions and rare letter and art work.

To the true Sherlockain of early work this was indeed a treat.

Very good labeling and numbering described each piece.

First edition Hound and letters from Doyle.

 Strand and other magazines on display.


















After the historical displays about Doyle and Holmes the next section was devoted to understanding forensic science of the time. The displays were set up to help you understand the mystery you could be solving later in the exhibition. Each station would be relevant later in the show. The lighting was not good enough for me to get many pictures of this part, but the displays were fun and educational. Aimed at the younger participants.

 They also had period hosts wondering around to help and answer any questions.
Hear is one posing with daughter.

 Next you came to several displays set up to represent 221b Baker St.  It was broken up into four sections instead of one room. But, although broken up, to aid with the mystery people were working on, they were still very well done.


Here is the seats around the fireplace.

 By the window and the wax statue of Holmes.

Each room had several things in them that visitors needed to find as sort of a scavenger hunt.

 Seats by the fireplace again.

Although the items needing to be found were very Canonical, there was no explanation for the non-Sherlockian on how they appeared in the stories.

 Holmes' chemical desk.

 Pipe and tea cup.

 Watson writing desk.


















After viewing the rooms at 221b you went into a section where the below room was set up as a crime scene. You were to observe numbered items in the room as clues and then go to station where four examples or explanations of the clues were shown. You had to pick the one that you thought best matched the crime scene. It was a little confusing, but very fun. (Or maybe I am just not a good detective.)
Again the lighting was not good enough for my camera to get good photos of the stations.

 The crime scene.

 After solving (or not) the mystery you entered the gallery that displayed items that have used Sherlocks representation of the years.

Here you can see 'Young Sherlock Holmes' and other movie stuff.

 Games and toys that have used his likeness.

 Some of my favorite things were all the art work by Paget and Steele.

Covers, sketches, prints, etc.

 I love these two.

Steele's work on early covers.

 More toys/

 'Peanuts'.

 Lots of movie props from some of the latest works.

Here is Blackwood's coffin from the first RDJ movie.

 Other props from that movie.

 And again.

 The lock wall from 'Elementary'.

 One of Lucy Liu's outfits from 'Elementary'.

 Miller's outfit from 'Elementary'.

 Do you recognize these from 'Sherlock'?

This last gallery was a great experience for anyone in to the movie or TV world of Holmes.












Over all the exhibition was very well done, with things to be found for die hard Sherlockians or casual fan. Most of it pertained to the Canonical Holmes more than the movie or modern Holmes, with just enough of that for those interested.
It was mostly aimed for a family experience but I saw a lot of adult Sherlockians taking it in.
The science center asked for volunteers to help at things like this and we spotted several local Sherlockians we knew.
If it come near you, you should go. I plan on trying to volunteer at least a few times.
We enjoyed it very much.