But should “Sherlock” really be a movie? Could it even happen?
The answer to the second question is probably simpler than the first. A “Sherlock” movie is indeed possible, if you believe the show’s creator and executive producer, Steven Moffat. “We don’t rule anything out,” says Moffat, when asked by Entertainment Weekly about feature film potential.
Still, he didn’t sound all that enthusiastic about the prospect. “There’s something quite special about the fact that it’s on television, starring those two,” Moffat continues.
Turning to whether or not a “Sherlock” film is a good idea, it’s good to remember that fans are essentially watching three feature films in every season of the show. Each episode has a roughly 90-minute running time and each provides a standalone mystery to be solved. What exactly would “Sherlock” change for the feature-film format?
Some might argue for bigger budgets, more travel and some cool special effects, but … honestly, why would “Sherlock” need these things? Holmes is and always has been a London-based detective with only an occasional wander into the British countryside. He doesn’t need to visit Tahiti or Dubai for the story to be fun. A bigger budget might bring in some huge actors, but why detract from the essential brilliance of Cumberbatch and Freeman?
And there is no special effect that can equal the brain of Sherlock Holmes.
It seems that a feature film might be a fun prospect, but it’s hardly necessary. “Sherlock” takes care of all of the entertainment by itself.