Talk:Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Preparing to watch the movie .!.[edit]

I'm deciding to be a FAN of the genre, the movie, and this excellent WP page. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC) . . . PS: Count down: 3 days.[reply]

The music is fantastic (to fans). http://sherlockholmes2.warnerbros.com/app#page=soundtrack . . . Also, watch the trailers (3) and the TV ad. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC) . . . See you in the theatre.[reply]

The release of the CD of the soundtrack is today. Someone did a great job in the Article listing the 18 songs performed for the movie, and explaining the additional three songs which you can download upon purchase of the CD. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also love the music. Particularly liked the clicking theme that echoed the telegraph keys - very similar to the Big Ben motif used in the first film. 02:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Me and other editors were involved with that. You are welcome too definitely with the critical reception almost ready. Also the talk page is for the benefit of the article per WP:Notaforum. I appreciate the compliments of the article and work and I hope you enjoy the movie once it comes out. ;) Jhenderson 777 18:39, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question: During the exchange between Adler and the business man in the auction, they talk about the letter. She is delivering a box that is supposed to have money in it, but actually has a bomb. I clearly remember the businessman mentioning something about the being for the sister of a person who did the work. Another editor said the letter was for Moriarty. I haven't seen the film a second time. I'm guessing the payment was for a bomb (not the one delivered), the killed businessman was the connection between the bombmaker and Moriarity, and the note was for the sister. Adler is supposed to report to Moriarty that the bomb was delivered and hand over the letter, which Moriarty knows about because Adler and the businessman were watched by another assassin. That letter is what leads Holmes to Sim. Not having the letter is what slows Moriarty down so Sims isn't killed by the time Holmes got there. BUT I don't remember all the details. Did anyone else catch them? This should be clarified in the piece because it is actually a very pivotal detail. 02:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The "businessman" who is killed is the doctor that performed the facial surgeries, which is what he's being paid/killed for. The letter was written by the brother to the sister but was being delivered by the doctor to Moriarity (via Irene), as evidence that the brother was possibly giving information to the sister (either deliberately or not). It's not actually said, but presumably the brother slipped the note to the doctor thinking he could trust him to deliver it to the sister, and he was instead giving it to Moriarity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.60.33 (talk) 22:50, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lil 'elp over here[edit]

We could use a new poster picture - since it was delayed to early this year, and the poster on the page stills says December the 16th. 138.217.108.19 (talk) 11:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you live? Because I watched it in December. --Boycool (talk) 13:00, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Minor error in singing?[edit]

Having just seen the movie, I am reasonably sure Moriarty gets his German slightly wrong. When singing "Die Forelle", I think he sung "Vorüber wie une Pfeil." rather than "Vorüber wie ein Pfeil.". Someone else should check this. This fact may not really be sufficiently notable for inclusion anyway! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.171.29 (talk) 00:28, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stop saying "generally mixed"![edit]

K guys, I already said something about this in the first movie's talk page. "Generally mixed" is nonsense, it's a ridiculous phrase that seems to be used in almost every place possible in a wikipedia article and it needs to end. But besides that saying "mostly mixed" or something like that is equally nonsensical. Saying "generally mixed to positive reviews" makes it seem like in order for something to be mixed it has to about equal shares of positive and negative reviews. No. "Mixed" refers to the degree of heterogeneity between components in a mixture, not the ratios of their total composition. Unless 100% of the reviews are either positive or negative, the reviews are mixed, ok? If a salad has one crouton in it, it's mixed. If it has a thousand croutons, it's still mixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.100.107.104 (talk) 06:36, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Mixed" can refer to the contents of a single review. It is therefore reasonable to say "mixed to positive". WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 19:01, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Did you know words can have more than one definition? Many of them do! The English phrase "mixed reviews" is universally used to indicate critical consensus was neither strongly positive or negative. Wait, how can a review be negative? It doesn't even have an electrical charge... Some guy (talk) 09:05, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Historical Inaccuracies?[edit]

This is a 'period film', so perhaps some historical errors are worthy of mention. I found nothing wrong with the scenery within (e.g. : Sacré Coeur was still under construction, the Eiffel Tower had just been built), but this article did find more than a few errors concerning inventions and medical discoveries, a subject not at all my specialty. I can look it up, but if someone more knowledgeable can add their (less effortful) two cents, that would be great. Best, THEPROMENADER 22:19, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, point taken. I was going to add more inaccuracies as I found them. Dr. Watson's mention of repressed memory five years before the concept was brain childed, as well as the type of machine guns that I know for certain did not exist in 1891, were extremely noteworthy to me. The webpage you listed makes no mention of them- but it does mention the obvious fault of the train scene, as to where Holmes times when to push Mary off the train- unless a train runs on a balanced source of energy such as electricity, the train will not move and arrive at it's destination to the second (or minute). The coal fires on the train cannot always burn at the same tempurate, so therefor it would have been impossible for a train to remain at the same speed throughout a trip. - Mdriver1981 (talk) 00:05, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I spotted the wrong German flags right away, found the reference to chest compression highly dubious, and saw these two inconsistencies coupled with some German spelling errors (which are a real pity, since they put so much effort into the neat, contemporary blackletter fonts):
When Holmes orders Watson to pay a visit to the German telegraph office, what it reads on the wall is Post und Telegraphenamt. While someone with minor to intermediate knowledge of German may interpret the Post in there as a fully independent noun, a native German, particularly in the Victorian era, would've added a hyphen to make Post- und Telegraphenamt (acknowledging especially in conjunction with Telegraphenamt that Post is really only a shorthand for Postamt).
Whereas the former may be excused as a neglect made by a non-native speaker, in the same shot (and another shot later), we see a smaller sign above the door which reads Telegrafenamt, the alternate f spelling of which, beside deviating from what we see right behind on the wall in the very same shot(!), is highly anachronistic especially for the 19th century and only became officially tolerated by the 1996 spelling reform, which is more than a hundred years after the film's plot.
And finally, as common a mistake by non-natives as the anachronistic flags, almost all German compound nouns (beside the Telegraphenamt mentioned above) in the movie are spelled just like in English, with blanks between every single element of the compound word, instead of using hyphens, or, even more native to German, spell them as just one word altogether, with no blanks or hyphens. --79.193.36.127 (talk) 10:33, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Inaccuracies, bloopers, or other such trivia, unless pointed out by reliable sources, are not appropriate for inclusion, per WP:TRIVIA. These can tend to edge on original research and hence why they are strongly discouraged. --MASEM (t) 13:19, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, fact is Strasbourg was NOT French in 1891, but German. And movies are supposed to teach us anything ??
This is not a historical documentary and does not at all pretend to be a realistic film. It isn't Saving Private Ryan.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:59, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Moran (I believe) makes a big deal of showing Molmes the new Mauser C96 pistols before Holmes is captured and interrogated. However, the movie is set in 1891, and said Mauser pistols were not even in development until 1893 or 1894, and were not in production until 1896, as the name suggests. 141.219.219.120 (talk) 23:50, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's point out other anachronisms. Though "Brass Era" automobiles date from 1898, it's not clear whether any would have been available in England in 1891. "Loudspeakers" for phonographs did not exist. ("Compressed air" speakers -- such as the Auxetophone -- came in about 10 years later.) Dr Watson bangs Holmes' chest to revive him (unlikely) and even applies CPR (sans the P) (even more unlikely). The references to contact lenses and plastic surgery are plausible. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 19:12, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would be nice to know the actors salaries in this film[edit]

I think it should be posted on the article on how much the salaries the actors got? $125 million is a lot of money, how much of it was on actor salaries, should be on the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.185.87.60 (talk) 20:47, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree, the actors salaries are important and are part of the article, since their is a budget they should be published as well. Good idea, thanks--184.75.218.126 (talk) 06:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I put an undo when another user said do we need this? I put it is relevant as the budget is on the right side this will give an idea where some of the money was spent. Actors do have a lot of the budget. Good suggestion.--184.107.21.139 (talk) 05:46, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, how is this anything other than WP:TRIVIA? DonIago (talk) 18:39, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I concur, post the salaries in the article, sources are attached on verification; this is no trivia. When the film cost XYZ and salaries cost XYZ then the, you have a film and a budget to make that film. Robert Downy Jr, Jude Law and etc, took a huge chuck of the budget. In fact they're starting paid after 2 years by getting royalties and the rest of the cast. Leave the salary information in or we take out the budget out of the article then. That said, leave it in. --119.81.6.218 (talk) 08:32, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Replied at new thread below. Short answer - we need evidence that the salaries for this film are somehow significant compared to the salaries actors have been paid for other films. DonIago (talk) 13:26, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be an edit war with user DonIago; but upon looking into the history with the salaries the original editor placed the sources in 2012 last year. It appears there was no dispute on this issue until now. I am filing a block on DonIago for edit abuse as it appears he is in anger over salary information. Who in what mind would not want to see a salary over what they made? Beats me but I support the information on there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.212.85.176 (talk) 19:05, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
IP, I agree. And just to add to what seems to be a consensus, I support the many IP users that have now commented on the edit in question. Information regarding salary is absolutely not WP:TRIVIA and has an integral place in this article. I see salary-based information in articles of this nature all the time and believe the "WP:trivia" argument to be wholly pointless. User talk:82.212.85.176 is also correct in that there seems to be inappropriate edit warring going on at this article by user Doniago as shown here [1], here [2], here [3], here [4], and here [5]. This is clearly a violation of the 3RR by Doniago. It also looks as though 82.212.85.176 tried giving a warning to the user but this did no good and his efforts were all removed: [6], [7], [8], [9]. AmericanDad86 (talk) 08:09, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide examples of other film articles in which the actors' salaries have been discussed?
Also, this discussion is regarding whether the actors' salaries should be included in the article, not a discussion of editor conduct. As you're well-aware there are more appropriate forums for that topic. Please use them. DonIago (talk) 10:40, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have two comments on this question. Firstly, when financial matters regarding films are discussed in the media generally, there are three figures that you will hear frequently discussed: production budget, box office, and actor salaries. Salaries are not always of interest and not always easy to get reliable information about, but they are often discussed. For two articles that have a substantial discussion of an actor's compensation, see the discussion of Jack Nicholson in Batman (1989 film) and Will Smith in Hancock (film). If someone were trying to add information about the catering budget for the film, I'd agree that it's trivia, but not the actors' salaries. In addition, payment to writers and directors is also not trivia. In the article for Basic Instinct, for example, there is a discussion of how much Joe Eszterhas was paid for the screenplay and the article for King Kong (2005 film) discusses how much Peter Jackson was paid to direct. Overall, the Film budgeting article gives a good idea of which specific items in a production budget might be more noteworthy than others and valid for inclusion in a specific film article.
Secondly, I am concerned that the specific sources that are being used in this article to source the claims about how much the actors were paid might not be reliable. I am familiar with neither website, but I could find nothing on either page to convince me that they were not created by some guy in pajamas in his basement. Maybe they are legit, but right now I would say they should not be counted as valid sources for the information unless someone can explain why we should trust their numbers. 99.192.67.143 (talk) 13:03, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: A third thought. About the sources for the salaries, I did a quick search and found these reliable sources about Downey's payment: [10] and [11]. The LA Times source is particularly interesting, because not only is it more reliable a source, but the article discusses reasons why actor salaries were once more widely reported and discussed and now are not discussed as much. 99.192.67.143 (talk) 13:16, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You make a good argument. The LA Times source sounds particularly like it might merit inclusion. DonIago (talk) 16:16, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the Los Angeles Times is a good source to use. I tend to include actors' salaries if sources mention them; Hancock (film) was one instance for me. I do not know of a database that mentions actors' salaries (which would make it hard to tell if such salaries are indiscriminate or not). I also recently added salary information to Transcendence (2014 film) especially with Variety indicating that it was a big deal. I think if periodicals and other reliable sources discuss salaries, then it is fair game to include in film articles. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:32, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Respirator suit in 1:17:30[edit]

Yet another question about accuracy At the time frame above Holmes is passing by a full respirator suit. 1) is it a respirator suit? 2) if it is, wouldn't that be not that advanced until WW II or after?

Just a question...I find that people seeing such inaccuracies pretty fun. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabinal (talk • contribs) 03:02, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actor Salaries need to be in article[edit]

The film budget has a lot to do with the actor salaries in the film, it is really the whole budget when you do the math of actors getting millions of dollars and the cost of the rest of the film to make it. About 38% of Sherlock Holmes Game of Shadows budget went into the actor's salaries, so with that fact, actor salaries need to be published on here.--119.81.6.218 (talk) 08:22, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How is it specifically significant to this film? Actors' salaries are a part of every film's budget. Has any third-party source discussed these salaries? DonIago (talk) 13:24, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I concur as the budget is part of the salaries the actors get is all related. Leave the actors salaries in article.--211.20.73.44 (talk) 10:08, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting cast salaries on cast list, salaries on actors is important. Support leaving it where it is.--198.23.77.118 (talk) 19:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not going to happen. For a starters the format,they made general sweeping comments that were not discussed in any reliable 3rd party sources and in that form, the information does not contribute to the article in anyway and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. If it is to be mentioned it needs to be from a Reliable Source and needs to meet the Encyclopaedic Tone requirements. MisterShiney ✉ 21:06, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I flavor cast salaries on the article as this states the budget is a part of the salaries the actors received from this film's budget. There's a price tag and two there's already several unreliable sources that were drafted on drathing this article in the first place. So to say, reliable sources, well there is a lot non-acedemic sources on this article to begin with. So the matter is mute because if that is the case, there's about 20 so articles in here that are not reliable sources and that would mean we would have to re-draft the article from scratch. Lastly to say "Not going to happen", that's out of context and dictating the article on what you say when you really can't rely on the current sources as the article is using now. So casting the salaries is fine, it basically says what they were paid, that's it. There is nothing wrong with posting the actors salaries.--62.73.8.35 (talk) 01:21, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If there exist reliable (not rumor-mongering) sources that state that state one or more of the actor's salaries, we can include that under production ("so and so was paid $x million for this role). But there are no sources for this and we can't make guesses or use unreliable sources. --MASEM (t) 01:41, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No. There is nothing wrong with adding the salaries to the article...when they are backed up by reliable sources that aren't glorified blogs. MisterShiney ✉ 19:48, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah , that's what I said (in case it wasn't clear :) If Variety or Hollywood Report listed the amounts, we're good. But if its something like TMZ, ahhhh, no. --MASEM (t) 20:02, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Udpated Rachel McAdams salary with verified sources here: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1046097/bio http://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-celebrities/actors/rachel-mcadams-net-worth/ http://www.forbes.com/2009/10/05/best-actresses-buck-business-entertainment-naomi-watts.html http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/gallery/angelina-jolie-robert-downey-jr-625755#19-rachel-mcadams http://www.thejay.com/2006/01/09/rachel-mcadams-is-the-next/ --62.73.9.4 (talk) 21:48, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB is not reliable as a user-submitted site. Forbes and Hollywood report are for sure, but I see nothing saying what her salary was for this movie. I'm not sure on the reliability of the other two but again, I'm not seeing anything that says about her salary from this film alone. --MASEM (t) 21:56, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Masem is bullying me here (I don't spend 8 hours everyday at home on Wikipedia nor am I getting paid to edit this) and saying IMBD sources are not reliable (even they he knows Martin Downey Jr made $15 million[12], Jude Law made $9 million[13] and Rahael McAdam made $5 million[14][15][16][17][18] on Sherlock Holmes Game of Shadows), ok if they aren't I looked into the article deeper and found there were several sources that are reliable on the article as it appears. I found ew.com and ign.com for films was unreliable which Masem is doesn't explain that are vice versa. I know he wants me blocked and is not willing to consensus the salaries on the Game of Shadows film. As I said, the sources I only replied were only adding salary information on the actors, what is so hard about that? It seems like he refuses to have the salaries on there as if he is being paid by a private agency to avoid putting actor salaries on the article. Is that wrong to place salaries with sources to at least verify the budget and what the budget cost to pay the actors out of the budget? Really, it seems I am being bullied here.--62.73.9.4 (talk) 22:55, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
IMDB is not considered reliable because anyone can add content to it, it is a self-published source (as listed at WP:SPS), so any information there cannot be trusted. Of your other sources, those for McAdams, none of this specifically say, in simple words "McAdams made $5 million for working on this film."; the Forbes article says she got an average of $5 million for each film, but that doesn't mean she made $5 million on this film. This are all improper sources to justify those claims. On the other hand, sites like ew.com and ign.com all meet the requirements for reliable sources having editorial control over content and a history of fact-checking. --MASEM (t) 22:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So your saying no salary information? Where do you think they get the information? IMBD is an actors account, they have user personal user files, you cannot log on and comment like a blog. It's a bio of their film history. I personally feel you are being paid here, not sure if it's agent of the Actors Gilled but their salaries is part of the budget, how do you think it cost $125 million[19] to make this movie? Do you think it was only location and camera's? 35% of the film went on actors salaries. IMDB is not a blog, you cannot comment on their like a blog, it states the information of what they made and what they acted in, is that so hard to ask. If there is no information, then how do you think the Los Angeles Time knows why the movie cost $125 million dollars then? http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/entertainmentnewsbuzz/2011/12/box-office-sherlock-holmes-alvin-chipmunks.html There is a break down what the movie cost, bottom line.--62.73.9.4 (talk) 23:16, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Users may have insider information, or they may simply be guessing, but unlike here - where we are required to source all of our information - they aren't required at IMDB. And the overall budget for films is regularly stated by film companies as this along with net sales is how they measure the size and success or failure of a film. However, the industry doesn't seem to give many details of actors salaries, why I don't know, but its definitely not a number that is publicly out there for most roles. (And I have absolutely no connection to anything in Hollywood, you are assuming bad faith). --MASEM (t) 23:21, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The film companies don't want the average minumum employees compared to $15 million dollar actor on a two month shoot. The story of Wikileaks is like bringing out the truth when the media doesn't want to cover it. CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, their all in bed together with Sony, Fox Studio's, Paramont, Universal and etc, if they can talk about ticket sales, they hide the salaries the actors are getting in the backend. It's sad but reality, this is real life. I mean CNN has no problem talking about Walmart low wage salaries but the salaries of actors, it is sad but my main point is, it is only the salary I want people to know, that's it. Reliable source, I thought IMDB would be decent as it is mostly trusted for news agencies to rely it for finding movie information and history of one actor from film or tv roles to co-actors and etc. IMDB is a huge megatag index of a pr9 website, that's the same range as Ebay and CNN link popularity. If I said if we put put IMBD to a Google Blog if people refer read information from such as film or tv, who are people going to trust more? IMDB. If I can't find reliable sources on salary, I think it should be another discussion on allowing IMBD site to source on this article.--62.73.9.4 (talk) 23:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is not our place to discredit how major media reports things. If they don't want to report the multifigure salaries that main actors get over the pitance that smaller ones do, we can't fix that. As for IMDB, asking to make it a reliable site is something you'd have to do over at WT:RS, which is unlikely going to fly because there's no way to track where information came from. As one other editor told you, if IMDB has reported it and it is a true fact then very likely another source has reported it as well and is more likely the original source of this material. That's who we have to go with for this information. --MASEM (t) 23:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But if CNN reply's on it and people reply on CNN for example, then what does that say on the public? Do people call CNN and say excuse me but that is unreliable information on tv there, can you give us reliable information? It's a daisy chain effect on information, where it starts and when it ends how all it was relied on. But besides that, your getting these undersground sources on the salary information and they are all coming up with the same information of how much they made. Maybe allow, if 3 to 5 sources say $5 million made, than you have to rely on something to verify it vice versa. I will try to for something but I am looking at what I see so far and it is being rejected here. Not all sources on Wikipedia are prefected either, you are going to find articles with unreliable sources and nobody detected them or they use them anyway.--62.73.9.4 (talk) 23:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If CNN reported the information about salaries, we would assume based on their past history of being a reliable source that the information is likely correct. But a plethera of unreliable sources doesn't make what they are saying reliable. I suggest you read on WP:RS to understand what type of sources we're looking for. --MASEM (t) 00:04, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree that we don't necessarily need salaries. We certainly don't need them from unreliable sources. - SchroCat (talk) 19:16, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the IP is back. Per WP:BLP I have removed the poorly sourced and unsourced information. --NeilN talk to me 13:13, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed on the questionable reliability of those sources - one doesn't even appear to exist anymore. Not opposed to adding these once a reliable source is found but that has to happen first. --MASEM (t) 15:44, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The source for Downey jrs salary is a page not found, laws salary reference is on an unreliable website and mcadams salary reference is on an unreliable tabloid website that speculates if the film is successful she may reach an extra million for the year. I don't know how that can be interpreted as 'at least 1 million'. Also, an actors earnings from a film are not always part of the budget, they may receive a % of profits which explains the qualifier in the mcadams reference 'if the film is successful'. The salaries should be removed pending actual sources, which I doubt exist. 101.190.30.206 (talk) 12:20, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Posted correction, salaries are placed. Sources are in Hollywood media companies gathered by talent agencies who contract the actors on the films contract. It is public information the film production itemizes the budget, vendors and etc for any media or whoever wants to know the movie production expenses are.--198.136.55.4 (talk) 20:09, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Repeatedly adding garbage sources is only get you blocked and/or the article semi-protected. --NeilN talk to me 21:12, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Shagos" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Shagos and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 17#Shagos until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. QueenofBithynia (talk) 19:11, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sherlock_Holmes:_A_Game_of_Shadows&oldid=1205274657"