Talk:Sherlock Holmes Baffled

message: What does "louchely-dressed" mean?  RJFJR (talk) 14:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: "Of questionable taste". In this context, it refers to his slightly flouncy dressing gown. Bob talk 15:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  louchely? 

message: For some reason (probably my incompetence), the .ogg video doesn't seem to work in Internet Explorer (although curiously, it does in Firefox). If anybody is able to sort it out, please feel free to have a go. Alternatively, the video is widely available on a number of external video hosting sites, for example . Bob talk 11:22, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: IE lacks native support for Ogg Theora videos. However it should play if you install VLC media player or java.©Geni 00:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  A note on the .ogg video 

message: I enjoyed this article very much, but I did have one question. The given film length, frame width, and frame rate give a running time closer to 40 seconds: (86.86 m/(0.068 m/frame))/(30 frames/s) = 42.58 s. Am I missing something? Lesgles (talk) 02:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You're probably right - it's roughly between 30-40 seconds. I guess because it was hand cranked, there's not a definitive running time anyway. Bob talk 07:24, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: True, I guess it's just that the word "giving" seemed to imply a mathematical calculation, whereas it's in fact just a different number from a different source. Probably not important. But by the way, the film length you give does not appear in Sherlock Holmes for Dummies. Could you add the source for that? Lesgles (talk) 16:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Length 

message: Taken from the text:
:"The plot of Sherlock Holmes Baffled is unrelated to Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's canonical Sherlock Holmes stories; it is likely that the character's name was used purely for its familiarity with the public."
If that is the case then why is it classed as a Sherlock Holmes film? It's a bit tendacious to claim it as a Sherlock Holmes film when that is contradicted by the featured article's own text. This is inconsistent with the notion that any film about Sherlock Holmes was made with the "intention" of using the sleuth from 221b rather than filming any old actor and then after the fact adding a label, in this case Sherlock Holmes Baffled. e.g. it's like mentioning every single representation of the name, sic Indian restaurants (Taj Mahal), it's the use of the name and not the entity that is being represented. 
This need clarification because this is being reported as the earliest representation of Sherlock Holmes when in fact this is just a short that has been labelled as Sherlock Holmes. There is a difference and one that is not being addressed here.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.171.102.173 (talk • contribs) 
:Haha, as you note, it's widely regarded as the first Sherlock Holmes film simply because it's the first instance of the character's name appearing in a cinematic context. I think it's made fairly clear early on that it's not true Conan Doyle, although to be honest neither were any of the other early Holmes films. After all, even Rathbone's highly regarded films pitted Holmes against the Nazis in the 1940s. The Holmes iconography based on William Gillette's New York portrayal is partly there, I guess, and Baffled is usually mentioned in published studies of Sherlock Holmes films. I suppose ultimately, it's unlikely the plot of A Study in Scarlet could be squeezed into a 30/40 second film. Bob talk 15:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inclusion of the film as a "Sherlock Holmes film" 

message: "It is the earliest-known film to feature Arthur Conan Doyle's detective character Sherlock Holmes, albeit in a form unlike that of later screen incarnations.[1]"
Well, how is it unlike other later screen incarnations? The medium it is created on? The baffledness of the Holmes? The shortness of the film?
I have a few more guesses, but, maybe someone could just point me to where in the article this is elaborated upon....
--184.99.171.157 (talk) 15:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sherlock Holmes Baffled#Analysis Bob talk 15:16, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Albeit in a form unlike that of later screen incarnations 

message: "This is because he solved the crime and realized that it was a close friend to him."
How do they come to that conclusion? There's no possible way to tell that he knows the person, and no indication that the case is solved. Dissapearing persons and items are involved, and he's baffled by their ability to dissapear. To come to other conclusions is to create something out of nothing.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.145.251.34 (talk) 17:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't worry, you unfortunately just came across the page a few seconds after that bit was added. Reverted now. Bob talk 17:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Action - close friend? 

message: The infobox states that the film is written by Arthur Conan Doyle. This is very clearly incorrect. Actually, I'll qualify that: The infobox says written by Arthur Conan Doyle and adds (character), which still suggests the same thing. It would be more accurate to suggest that it was written by Arthur Marvin based on Arthur Conan Doyle's Character. -Dhodges (talk) 19:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I would assume there was at least an informal script, considering the amount of trick photography involved. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 23:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Written by Arthur Conan Doyle