Finally decided. What do you think?
Nice.Fits in with your signature.
Could do with being enlarged to the full size permitted maybe…
Slan,
D.
yeah, I’m working on that…
I’m at work and have limited resources for image editing without my laptop.
p.s. Jeremy Brett rules. 
He mad a great Sherlock. His expressions & mannerisms were fabulous.
All the Best, Tom
Come on. Brett is about as interesting as porridge. There was only one Holmes, and that will always be Basil Rathbone. His voice and mannerisms for the character have set a benchmark for all who would follow.
djm
Indeed, Baz rules. And there will never be a Watson as good as Nigel Bruce.
Too right! Rathers and Brucey it is :adminok:
Actually, I agree with you, he is indeed the best potrayal. Still, I enjoy Brett, personally. Can’t I like both?
Yes, yes you can… I do.
I like both but for me Sherlock is best left on the printed page.
I’ve read all the stories many times and have never felt that they have ever been translated onto the screen successfully.
The mind is the best theatre.
Slan,
D. 
Touche’
I disagree about Rathbone, though I loved the movies. He was too even-tempered for a coke addict. I like Brett a lot, because he’s edgy and less approachable. You feel like he could snap at any minute.
Absolutely! 
I’ve never seen a book-based movie that could compare to my mental image from reading the book. (Don’t get me wrong; I enjoy movies. I just like books better.)
I liked Basil Rathbone best as Holmes, but I thought Nigel Bruce was perhaps a bit too dumb as Watson. The real Watson (the one in the books I mean) was smarter than that!
I’m with Weekender on this one. I’ve been reading Holmes since I was about I was about 12 and I was always fascinated by his character. He was really NOT a very likeable person-- he had little or no patience for people of lesser intellect, which included just about everyone. He was tempramental, moody, and a cocaine addict (sporadic). Although I always enjoyed Rathbone and other Holmeses, none of them ever fit my mental picture until I saw Jeremy Brett. He had all the tics and quirks and mannerisms (like them or not) that I found on Conan Doyle’s pages.
Nigel Bruce was cute as Watson but he was such a bumbler that it’s hard to imagine that Holmes would tolerate his presence, much less his assistance. The two actors who portrayed Watson with Jeremy Brett were, in my opinion, much better matches for Holmes in every way.
Another joy of the BBC series was the stream of minor characters such as police officers, household domestics, farmers etc. Each was a perfect little vignette and slice of Victorian life.
Finally, the Brett series used ACTUAL Sherlock Holmes stories, not merely “inspired by”… often with large sections of Doyle’s dialogue quoted verbatim. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!
I’ve seen ads on PBS for a new Sherlock series. I can’t remember the new fellow’s name, but I was a bit taken aback by him. He seems so young, for one thing. And he looks awfully ill, which I guess is from his addiction but it shows him leaping from a roof which he looks in no condition to do. He just doesn’t fit the stereotye exactly. I think I like all the movie and TV ones and there is the one in my mind who (m?) I like best.
Oh sorry, I like your avatar. Off topic, no censoring intended. Larger would be better, but it’s good.
No no no, its precisely because a film cannot capture your mental imaginings of a book that make Rathbone and Bruce better. They dont stick slavishly to trying to portray the book, rather they give it their own twist, precisely the reason for putting it into a film format in the first place. Also film portrayals are always a beast of their times, hence the brooding Nazi threat these early films contain. Why have a film at all if its just as you imagined the book?
Ah, vive le difference…
Hay! 
we’ll have none of that balanced rational stuff around here, it just gets in the way of a good rant!
Well, actually, why have a film at all if the story is already written as a book?