Sherlock and deleted scenes
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Murder by Death
tmw4587 — 20 years ago(January 23, 2006 03:36 AM)
People here mention the deleted scene at the end where Holmes and Watson show up late. I remember seeing this one time when the movie was shown on TV twenty or more years ago but can someone remind me what Sherlock says? I seem to recall they got lost and have to ask one of the departing guests for directions to the house. Hopefully this will be included in the deleted scenes on a DVD. Anyone know when the DVD might come out?
thanks -
KSzir — 20 years ago(January 31, 2006 01:57 PM)
The DVD is available on the internet at places like Amazon.com. I haven't seen it in a store for a long time although a specialty DVD store might have it. Amazon probably has is for $14-18. I picked it up from them last year. There are no extras on the disc. The picture is a decent transfer considering how old the picture is and that it isn't a well known film.
-
lee_ann92 — 20 years ago(February 13, 2006 10:33 PM)
The legendary Sherlock scenes are NOT on the DVD Sherlock actually appears at the end after the characters leave the castle. Number One Son asks his father if they should let Holmes and Watson know what happened and his father snaps no.
The reason for the permanent deletion has to do with copyrights apparently permission was not obtained to use the image of Holmes and Watson and so the scene has moved into legend -
majikstl — 18 years ago(August 09, 2007 02:11 AM)
The reason for the permanent deletion has to do with copyrights apparently permission was not obtained to use the image of Holmes and Watson and so the scene has moved into legend
I find this curious. The Holmes stories are well over 100 years old; I would think they would have fallen into public domain by this time. But maybe not, copyright laws being very confusing. Yet, even if it is true, I would think the use of the characters' images, used fleetingly and clearly for satirical purposes, would fall under the area of fair use. And since all the other characters are parodies of famous characters, obviously still under copyright protection, I would think it would be obvious that it isn't the "real" Holmes and Watson, but parodies as well. -
jwpeel-1 — 18 years ago(February 10, 2008 10:44 PM)
The story I got was different. The images of Holmes and Watson are in the public domain. What the Conan Doyle estate has is the rights to a few of the later Holmes stories.
The reason I read some time back (in a book about the Sherlock Holmes films) was that the Holmes/Watson scene was cut out because the egos of the other stars would not allow themselves and their characters to be overshadowed by the more famous personages.
At the time the film was released to network television, it also aired on HBO, but the theatrical version did not include the Holmes/Watson scene, so I marked where the scene comes into the film, stopped the taping of the HBO showing and duped in the Holmes/Watson scene from the network showing. Later, I waited until HBO ran it again and picked up the taping from that point until the end credits. I love Sherlock Holmes and detective stories and films that much.
But please don;t ask me to make a copy available. I have SO many VHS tapes, and it would be a real job to find this particualr tape. I'm sorry. -
balkaster — 16 years ago(December 26, 2009 10:58 AM)
Plus the characters are not mentioned by name. The version I heard was that Simon and Moore decided after the scene was in the film that Holmes and Watson were too anachronistic (the other characters being parodies of 1930s-40s detectives), and that the scene didn't really add much to the film. Apparently, it was in the initial theatrical release, but when it went into wider release, the scene was already removed. It reappeared in initial television broadcasts, but has since disappeared again.
The copyright status is tricky, but at the time the film was produced, the characters were not in the public domain. Copyright status in the US won't expire until 2016 at the earliest; it expired in Canada in 1980 and the UK in 2000. The stories being "well over 100 years old" means nothing. Copyright extends 50 to 100 years (depending on circumstances) from the death of the author, not the publication date of the individual works. Conan Doyle died in 1930. The stories were published between 1887 and 1917, so
none
of them were "well over 100 years old" in 1976, when the film was released. -
Animated — 15 years ago(March 07, 2011 03:54 AM)
The reason for the permanent deletion has to do with copyrights apparently permission was not obtained to use the image of Holmes and Watson and so the scene has moved into legend.
The version I heard was that Simon and Moore decided after the scene was in the film that Holmes and Watson were too anachronistic (the other characters being parodies of 1930s-40s detectives), and that the scene didn't really add much to the film.
The reason I read some time back (in a book about the Sherlock Holmes films) was that the Holmes/Watson scene was cut out because the egos of the other stars would not allow themselves and their characters to be overshadowed by the more famous personages.
These multiple theories are as confusing as the end of the film itself.
Surely someone could get a definitive statement from Neil Simon and/or some of the surviving cast and crew? -
nursewratchet_romanorn — 13 years ago(September 23, 2012 08:19 PM)
Public domain? Are you crazy. Sherlock Holmes is on the top 5 list every year for income amongst fictional characters. The Sir Author Conan Doyle descendants still own the rights. I believe it is actually a permanent trust, if I remember correctly. Too bad they weren't willing to pay the royalties necessary to use Holmes and Watson-I would have loved to have seen that!!
-
Jamesir_Bensonmum — 12 years ago(January 30, 2014 12:31 PM)
Public domain? Are you crazy. Sherlock Holmes is on the top 5 list every year for income amongst fictional characters. The Sir Author Conan Doyle descendants still own the rights. I believe it is actually a permanent trust, if I remember correctly. Too bad they weren't willing to pay the royalties necessary to use Holmes and Watson-I would have loved to have seen that!!
The characters of Holmes and Watson are in the public domain.
However, there are aspects of Arthur Conan Doyle's stories that are still under copyright protection.
The makers of this film could freely use the characters, but they could not freely use certain Doyle story plot aspects that were still under copyright at the time.
There are now (today) only 10 more Doyle Holmes stories that still have copyright protection (his final 10), but the characters are free to re-use. -
michaelvecchio8 — 12 years ago(September 17, 2013 11:34 AM)
Sherlock Holmes and all characters pertaining to Sir Arthur Conan Doyles works have never been copyrighted. Doyle, who did not want to continue with the character after the death of Sherlock and Moriarty , gave permission to everyone full access to the characters. The omission of the characters at the end of the movie must be linked to some project containing the characters in a non-comidic way. I believe "Sherlock in New York" and "The Seven Percent Solution" came out around the same time as the omission. At least they got their own comedies, "Without a Clue" and "Sherlocks Smarter Brother". We still got the last laugh.
-
taconlon — 18 years ago(September 15, 2007 02:03 PM)
I can't remember what Wang's son says (something like "Pop, shouldn't we tell them it's all a hoax?") but as I remember it Wang's response was something like "Let fools find out for selves. Drive, please."
-
-
fshepinc — 20 years ago(February 26, 2006 06:45 PM)
When I saw the film in the theatre there was no Sherlock scene at the end, but there was a scene that was cut from the video/DVD release for some reason: It showed Jessica Withers and her nurser in an old-fashioned London taxi, pulling up to the Twain house. They had clearly taken the cab from London to the US, with gags about the fare and the difficulty in crossing the Atlantic. Anyone else remember it? Anyone know why it was deleted?
Zaphod's just zis guy, you know?
-
celeb_sleuth — 20 years ago(February 27, 2006 06:26 AM)
The cab driver was played by Peter Sellers, doing one of his infamous impressions. It was deleted because it was too confusing for viewers to see Peter Sellers in 2 roles in the movie. The script has several deleted scenes, which I listed on here before such as confrontation between Jessica Marbles (Elsa Lanchester) and Dora Charleston (Maggie Smith) about how murder is "never exciting" or words to that affect. There is also the scene missing where the adopted son finds another note in Lionel Twain's hand, and missing dialogue in the dining room scene between several of the characters, probably cut due to time contraints. Everything in the script was shot, so it would be very exciting if someone ever picked all these deleted scenes off the cutting room floor and put them into a special edition DVD. The script also explains the ending, if anyone is curious I would gladly tell them what the ending is supposed to suggest.
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
If you hadnt already tried to figure it out for yourself, the maid is in fact Lionel's daughter Rita/Irene. You will take note that neither the maid, nor Lionel Twain, are ever in the same room at the same time because he would be able to tell it was his daughter immediately. The ending was filmed several times, with different actresses playing the daughter, however it proved too confusing and they stuck with Nancy Walker. -
Sten-Menden — 19 years ago(July 07, 2006 06:48 PM)
I don't think that this explains much. If there is a Lionel Twain an a "undercover Rita" why does Twain know when and that he will be killed? And why does he let somebody kill him?
And when it really was Rita why don't get Perrier the money? Or is it so because his theory says that she had killed several other people but she have not done this?
So i think this spoiler doesn't explain anything really. -
ColleenDot — 19 years ago(August 13, 2006 05:02 PM)
I don't think celeb_sleuth meant that there were two seperate Twains. What I believe may have happened is that Rita staged Lionels death. Maybe that wasn't really Twain (fake plastic body) or something. I don't know. Maybe we weren't meant to know. Just one of those unsolved questions that we have to live with.
-
madkaugh — 18 years ago(July 10, 2007 04:49 PM)
It was deleted because it was too confusing for viewers
to see Peter Sellers in 2 roles in the movie.
Good Lord, no. Peter Sellers often played multiple roles:
The Mouse That Roared (1959) - Grand Duchess Gloriana XII/Prime Minister Count Rupert Mountjoy/Tully Bascombe
Dr. Strangelove (1964) - Group Captain Lionel Mandrake/President Merkin Muffley/Dr. Strangelove
The Fiendish Plot of Dr. Fu Manchu (1980) - Dennis Nayland Smith/Dr. Fu('Fred') Manchu
With all the convolutions in this plot, Neil Simon would not have been put off by casting Peter Sellers in a second dissimilar bit role for its being too confusing.
MadKaugh -
avortac — 13 years ago(September 02, 2012 12:33 AM)
"It was deleted because it was too confusing for viewers to see Peter Sellers in 2 roles in the movie. "
Oh, come on. That can't be a reason. Have you seen any Austin Powers movies? Try to count how many roles Mike Myers is in, without audience getting confused. By that, at least. Furthermore, I have seen many movies where the same guy plays different roles, and those movies have never confused the audience. With that, at least..