Elementary: New CBS Sherlock Series [Season 1 thread]

[Missy2U]

I really liked it. My Thursday nights are shaping up QUITE nicely!

[Infovore]

I did not expect to like it, and was pleasantly surprised. I will be watching this one regularly.

The only thing I didn't like was the scene at the beginning when Watson first encountered Holmes. I'm having a little trouble accepting a Sherlock Holmes with that many tattoos (no problems with tattooed folk in general, and I think they look great on some people--just not on Sherlock Holmes), and even more trouble accepting one with saggy pants and his boxers sticking out the top.

Once he got dressed, though, I was fine.

[zoid]

Sorry, didn't care for it.
I was like house but with crappy acting and, if can be belived, even more contrived plot.

[Tim R. Mortiss]

I was not impressed. It was like The Finder without the likeable characters, or Psych without the hilarity. In other words, not noticeably better than The Mentalist.

As for why Watson was made a woman, there's always the oldest reason in the world: to attract men's eyeballs.

[Typo Negative]

I liked it enough to give it another go.

[LVBoPeep]

Originally Posted by Typo Negative

I liked it enough to give it another go.

Same here although I thought Lucy Liu was a bit flat.

[GuanoLad]

Something about it didn't quite work for me. It didn't zing. It didn't snap. It didn't *insert unhelpful buzzword here*. I'll give it a few episodes, as it seems to be a standard procedural in format, and I like those well enough, so it should come together.

I really liked Perception from episode 1, but disliked both Haven and Grimm from episode 1, so I am nothing if not inconsistent.

[TonySinclair]

I liked it, but as I was watching I couldn't stop comparing it to The Mentalist.

And I can't help but wonder if, like The Mentalist, it will start out with strong shows that have a lot of clever deductions based on minute observations, but as they start having to write more episodes in less time, it will evolve into him just smugly watching the police bumble around for 50 minutes, then he'll pull something completely out of the blue to solve the case at the end of the show.

Also, I thought the premise was unnecessarily stupid. A beautiful young woman agrees to live with a drug addict she's never even met? Surely they could have gotten them together some other way. Wasn't that same actress in a movie where she just happened to live down the hall from a guy, and got involved in all his strange adventures? Even that would have been less distracting. I spent half my time wondering what world these people were from.

I haven't watched either The Finder or Perception. Are those comparable/better?

[TonySinclair]

Originally Posted by TonySinclair

Wasn't that same actress in a movie where she just happened to live down the hall from a guy, and got involved in all his strange adventures?

I looked her up in IMDB, and the movie I was thinking of was Lucky Number Slevin. It was pretty good. I would have sworn I saw it several years earlier than 2006, though.

[Edward The Head]

I was only meh, about it. It was ok, but it didn't really feel like Sherlock to me, just some random guy. I'll watch a few more times to see if it picks up, but I'm not sure how long I'll stick with it if it continues the same way.

[Dewey Finn]

I agree that it doesn't feel like Sherlock Holmes. The BBC version (comparisons are inevitable) is a clever updating of the original stories. Watson is a wounded veteran of Afghanistan, they live at Baker Street, Mrs. Hudson is the landlady, etc. It's a lot of fun for someone who has read the Conan Doyle stories. This one is OK, but different.

[-getitrite]

Who would like Lucy Lui, "Charlie's Angles " "Kill Bill" and the premis is a guy who consults on crime with the observation skill of S.Holmes ? Liked the premier, will watch again, How about YOU?

[twickster]

Welcome to the SDMB, -getitrite. There's already a thread about Elementary, so I have moved your post there.

[-getitrite]

Wonder Of Wonder, thanks, good to know that I have a gardian angle.
Glad also to see, there were others who found the new show. Enjoyed the preimer, we'll see said the sage.

[panamajack]

Originally Posted by Dewey Finn

I agree that it doesn't feel like Sherlock Holmes. The BBC version (comparisons are inevitable) is a clever updating of the original stories. Watson is a wounded veteran of Afghanistan, they live at Baker Street, Mrs. Hudson is the landlady, etc. It's a lot of fun for someone who has read the Conan Doyle stories. This one is OK, but different.

Yes, compared to Sherlock it's really lacking. It almost feels more like someone used all the material inspired and based on the original (House, The Seven Percent Solution, Probe) but not the source itself. I found the tattooed and flawed Holmes a problem, though an even bigger problem was that he had difficulty understanding humans. ACD's Holmes is excellent at reading people and has a deep affection for humanity — he's just not demonstrative about it. And there are some people he knows he can bother because he's actually doing work to help them. This guy seems to have a serious empathic disability.

But it has potential to be an entertaining show. I actually liked the acting. The mystery and the writing was decent enough, and the leads work well together. Unfortunately if they do as many shows as is typical for TV series it's likely that they'll drop the mystery work now and then to 'develop the characters'. But maybe they can avoid that.

[Irishman]

I liked it well enough. I'll be giving it a go.

[Krokodil]

It has its problems--the Holmes I know would never disrupt an opera under those circumstances, and is more cultured and self-controlled--but the fact remains that while Sherlock and House are far superior, one comes out 3 times a year and the other is cancelled.

Ultimately, Holmes is one of those wonderful characters created by a terrible writer. He's fair game for this kind of interpretation.

[RealityChuck]

Not overly impressed. Even ignoring the comparison between the other Holmes franchises running right now, the first show was startlingly mediocre.

1. Holmes wasn't all the smart. It's supposed to be a sign of his brilliance was that he saw through Watson's story about why she wasn't a doctor, but I had guessed the truth about fifteen minutes before. And her story was a doddering old cliche; her original story would have made for some interesting possibilities. Or they could have come up with something actually original.

2. The Google line, while funny, also diminishes him: the literary Holmes didn't need Google. This one should stay away from it.

3. The magic clues. This is a problem in a lot of current police procedural these days: a clue is discovered that happens to solve the case because of one lucky coincidence. On CSI, it's "that chip of paint came from a shade that was only sold in one store in Las Vegas and they have a record of every customer for the last ten years on tape." Here it was the "perfectly symmetrical" living room and the rice allergy.

4. Why the hell did Holmes crash the car? What did that accomplish other than to piss off the suspect?

5. The murder plot was too far-fetched to be credible. No one would plan a murder that way and the idea that the two men could meet without anyone seeing them is ridiculous. The killer was depending on something that had a million ways to go wrong and only one way to go right.

6. While I give the writers credit for making Lucy a Mets fan instead of the more expected Yankees, the final scene was just plain stupid. That's not the result of rational analysis; it's clairvoyance.

7. Where was the humor? Holmes was dull and Watson too serious to be interesting.

I put some of this down to the usual problems with a pilot episode. It may improve. But so far, I haven't seen anything that makes me want to give it any more than a trial period.

[Meltdown]

So, I had this weird thing where I was taken out of the show every time he mentioned that his name was Sherlock Holmes. I kept expecting one of the other characters to make some snide comment about expecting him to be the world's greatest detective, or something. And then I had to remind myself that no other character in this show has ever heard of the name Sherlock Holmes in any other context.

It will probably pass in time, but I found myself thinking that if they kept everything about the show exactly the same but changed the main character's name to something less familiar, it would have felt more real. That's not fair, I know, but it was just how I felt.

[C K Dexter Haven]

Originally Posted by Meltdown

So, I had this weird thing where I was taken out of the show every time he mentioned that his name was Sherlock Holmes. I kept expecting one of the other characters to make some snide comment about expecting him to be the world's greatest detective, or something. And then I had to remind myself that no other character in this show has ever heard of the name Sherlock Holmes in any other context.

It will probably pass in time, but I found myself thinking that if they kept everything about the show exactly the same but changed the main character's name to something less familiar, it would have felt more real. That's not fair, I know, but it was just how I felt.

I agree, but for a different reason. I don't mind re-interpretations of Holmes (I think the newest BBC version is brilliant) but there are some basics that shouldn't change. They've got him as super-brilliant detective, OK, fine, but the other bit that's so attractive about Holmes is that he's an English Gentleman (in the Victorian sense.) This new production (and the first Robert Downey movie, I haven't seen the second) portrays him as total shlumph. Why would any client hire him? I'd be turned off immediately.

We'll give the show a few more chances, but basically we liked the story line, and wish it were some other named detective(s.)

[Snooooopy]

I like Jonny Lee Miller, so I'll probably stick with the show. I do expect it to add some more classically Sherlockian touches at some point, though.

[RealityChuck]

Originally Posted by Meltdown

So, I had this weird thing where I was taken out of the show every time he mentioned that his name was Sherlock Holmes. I kept expecting one of the other characters to make some snide comment about expecting him to be the world's greatest detective, or something. And then I had to remind myself that no other character in this show has ever heard of the name Sherlock Holmes in any other context.

It will probably pass in time, but I found myself thinking that if they kept everything about the show exactly the same but changed the main character's name to something less familiar, it would have felt more real. That's not fair, I know, but it was just how I felt.

I thought about that, too. This Sherlock Holmes has to be living in a parallel universe where Sir Arthur Conan Doyle does not exist.

Another thing that bothers me about the Google reference: if Holmes can look up Watson's parents on Google, he should also have come across why she was no longer a surgeon; it would probably be the first thing you found.

[Jormungandr]

So, Holmes now has a living father. I wonder what he'll be like. If Holmes is like this, what must Mycroft be like.

[don't mind me]

Originally Posted by Meltdown

So, I had this weird thing where I was taken out of the show every time he mentioned that his name was Sherlock Holmes. I kept expecting one of the other characters to make some snide comment about expecting him to be the world's greatest detective, or something. And then I had to remind myself that no other character in this show has ever heard of the name Sherlock Holmes in any other context.

And if that's the premise, who in the twentieth century would name their kid Sherlock? (I could understand someone who's an ACD Holmes fanatic. In fact, "ACD Holmes" would have been a better name.)

[Nom_de_Plume]

Originally Posted by LVBoPeep

Same here although I thought Lucy Liu was a bit flat.

She is Asian.

[Ichini Sanshigo]

I enjoyed it. The way I see it is, there's multiple ways to "update" a series. I was really hoping for a series that took the original stories and retold them in a modern setting, and when I didn't get that with BBC Sherlock, I was hoping to get it with Elementary, but no dice,

You can also update a series by just transplanting the characters to a modern setting. Both Sherlock and Elementary do this, but I think Sherlock still retains a very much Victorian sensibility, while Elementary is a more thorough updating in terms of modern sensibilities and how people like Holmes and Watson would have grown in this century.

I thought the mystery was pretty decent. Even though the producers have said they aren't using the original stories, that doesn't mean they haven't dropped details from the stories in this new series. It's fairly subtle, but the pilot reminded me of "The Norwood Builder" and "TheCopper Beeches".

Also liking the obvious plot arcs they've set up (the circumstances surrounding Joan losing her license, and how Holmes left/got driven out of London). Definitely looking forward to seeing more.

[TonySinclair]

Originally Posted by Nom_de_Plume

She is Asian.

Obviously you are not familiar with Hitomi Tanaka.

NSFW to google her.

[GuanoLad]

Originally Posted by Ichini Sanshigo

I was really hoping for a series that took the original stories and retold them in a modern setting, and when I didn't get that with BBC Sherlock

... You didn't? I am pretty sure I did. Didn't I?

I'm confused.

[Ichini Sanshigo]

Eh, not really? I mean, Study in Pink and the Hound of Baskerville were fairly close to the originals, with their own twists, but both Moriarty and Irene Adler's stories were almost completely changed. Even the cases listed on the blog are pretty different. For example, the only thing "The Geek Interpreter" really has in common with "The Greek Interpreter" in the pun on the name. Sherlock has an interesting blend of original plots mixed with some plot elements from canon (and other Sherlock Holmes remakes, making their plagiarism threats about Elementary just a wee bit ironic).

It's still entertaining (I really liked their take on "The Bruce-Partington Plans"/"The Naval Treaty") but it's not quite the same as a direct retelling of the plot with updated characters and setting. I do get why no one's doing that - a) the stories have already been told, by Doyle, so why rehash it? and b)In a television format being super faithful to the plot is limiting. And Sherlock isn't really even a TV show, it's a set of made-for-TV movies/ a miniseries. If they weren't going to do direct updates, CBS certainly isn't.

[foolsguinea]

Originally Posted by panamajack

Yes, compared to Sherlock it's really lacking. It almost feels more like someone used all the material inspired and based on the original (House, The Seven Percent Solution, Probe) but not the source itself.

You may have a point. I was comparing this one to Adrian Monk and Daryl Zero.

[aldiboronti]

Originally Posted by don't mind me

And if that's the premise, who in the twentieth century would name their kid Sherlock? (I could understand someone who's an ACD Holmes fanatic. In fact, "ACD Holmes" would have been a better name.)

Very few. In fact as of February 2011 only 221 people have the first name Sherlock and 49 of them live in New York.

As for the show, meh. As Dex said, I much prefer Holmes to remain an English gentleman whatever century he's in.

[Bridget Burke]

Originally Posted by Ichini Sanshigo

Eh, not really? I mean, Study in Pink and the Hound of Baskerville were fairly close to the originals, with their own twists, but both Moriarty and Irene Adler's stories were almost completely changed. Even the cases listed on the blog are pretty different. For example, the only thing "The Geek Interpreter" really has in common with "The Greek Interpreter" in the pun on the name. Sherlock has an interesting blend of original plots mixed with some plot elements from canon (and other Sherlock Holmes remakes, making their plagiarism threats about Elementary just a wee bit ironic).

It's still entertaining (I really liked their take on "The Bruce-Partington Plans"/"The Naval Treaty") but it's not quite the same as a direct retelling of the plot with updated characters and setting. I do get why no one's doing that - a) the stories have already been told, by Doyle, so why rehash it? and b)In a television format being super faithful to the plot is limiting. And Sherlock isn't really even a TV show, it's a set of made-for-TV movies/ a miniseries. If they weren't going to do direct updates, CBS certainly isn't.

The reason "plagiarism" was mentioned when Elementary was announced: CBS had approached the BBC Sherlock showrunners, wanting their help in creating a version for US markets. Moffat, et al., were already busy & he remembers the US version of his Coupling. So they said no.

CBS went ahead. Really, most of the stories are public domain & so many other versions had been made. And continue to be made. (Yes, Moffat & Gatiss, as well as being total ACD fanboys, have spoken favorably of various other versions. They like the Basil Rathbone films for their freedom from canon; and Gatiss has written about Billy Wilder's The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes.)

I don't know that we need exact remakes of the stories, set in the modern world; but nobody has chosen that approach. Sherlock's makers have taken their deep love of the canon & run with it, playfully. I'll keep reading about Elementary to see if that show can find its own route to excellence; "doesn't suck" isn't good enough....

[twickster]

Originally Posted by Bridget Burke

I'll keep reading about Elementary to see if that show can find its own route to excellence; "doesn't suck" isn't good enough....

Or, you could just watch it and decide for yourself. Too easy?

[Bridget Burke]

Originally Posted by twickster

Or, you could just watch it and decide for yourself. Too easy?

Right now, I just can't fit it into my schedule. I've got cable, DVD's, BluRays, Netflix & everything else on the 'net. Plus that big pile of books....

Really, I'm listening for the rave reviews! That do not come from those with Moffat Issues...

[amarinth]

I wouldn't give it a rave review, but I would give it a "pleasant enough way to spend an hour." Honestly, I was more obsessed with Watson's sweater (what was that? bulky yarn on super bulky needles? And can someone not built like Liu get away with that?) than with the mystery. But the mystery wasn't bad. The cast did a good job. It's not groundbreaking, but I don't always need the ground to be broken when I'm watching television.

I liked it well enough. I'll probably watch it again.

[Kal]

It's like a gritty version of Monk, where Monk is a tattooed British drug addict.

I don't really understand why the makers felt a need for the Sherlock Holmes tag. It's a bog-standard detective show that could stand or fall on its own merits without needing to bother naming the characters Holmes and Watson. With this pilot at least, the names are more or less the only connection.

[-getitrite]

Despite being a ACD -Holmes fan, this show is not in the same box as that was, don't think they wanted it to be either. The actors did a good job, and the story was good in its twists and how we now live our lives, I learned to put my Phone in rice if it gets wet, and trying to murder anyone is always full of problems. Yes learning is good. The show will get a second chance, and No one will ever replace the stories told by ACD, but just like Agatha Christie, and good mystery is good for an hour of my time. AT least they didn't call it Perrot.

[TonySinclair]

Originally Posted by aldiboronti

Very few. In fact as of February 2011 only 221 people have the first name Sherlock

Did you mean 221B?

[TonySinclair]

Originally Posted by amarinth

But the mystery wasn't bad.

Actually, the biggest mystery to me was why the husband made the clues so subtle. The cops seemed especially incompetent, but still, if Holmes hadn't been there, the husband most likely would have been accused, tried, and convicted, especially after his wife's corpse started stinking up the neighborhood.

[dropzone]

Originally Posted by Kal

I don't really understand why the makers felt a need for the Sherlock Holmes tag.

It got you to watch it and it didn't cost them extra.

[Sam Lowry]

Originally Posted by TonySinclair

Actually, the biggest mystery to me was why the husband made the clues so subtle. The cops seemed especially incompetent, but still, if Holmes hadn't been there, the husband most likely would have been accused, tried, and convicted, especially after his wife's corpse started stinking up the neighborhood.

That's a good point. What was the husband's plan if only regular detectives were investigating and they hadn't discovered the safe room?

[Meltdown]

Originally Posted by Sam Lowry

That's a good point. What was the husband's plan if only regular detectives were investigating and they hadn't discovered the safe room?

It's possible the husband really didn't know that she was in there, right? His plan was to focus the killer's attention on his wife, and then just stand back. I don't think he was intimately familiar with what the killer intended to do -- I don't think the killer himself had any idea what he intended to do. And, although I'm not 100% clear on the timeline, I think that at the time of the initial investigation he hadn't yet gone to see the killer.

[John Bredin]

Originally Posted by RealityChuck

2. The Google line, while funny, also diminishes him: the literary Holmes didn't need Google. This one should stay away from it.

I respectfully disagree. In Five Orange Pips, Holmes looks up something obscure (at least to a Briton in 1887) in an encyclopedia and makes a point of saying he doesn't try to memorize all useful information.

Originally Posted by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

Holmes grinned at the last item. “Well,” he said, “I say now, as I said then, that a man should keep his little brain-attic stocked with all the furniture that he is likely to use, and the rest he can put away in the lumber-room of his library, where he can get it if he wants it. Now, for such a case as the one which has been submitted to us to-night, we need certainly to muster all our resources. Kindly hand me down the letter K of the American Encyclopaedia which stands upon the shelf beside you. Thank you."

[Simplicio]

Yea, the original Holmes is always looking stuff up. He had a a big catalogue of newspaper clipping and files on important people in his apartment.

[Dewey Finn]

Originally Posted by John Bredin

I respectfully disagree. In Five Orange Pips, Holmes looks up something obscure (at least to a Briton in 1887) in an encyclopedia and makes a point of saying he doesn't try to memorize all useful information.

I seem to remember that the BBC version used a version of that quote.

[Southern Yankee]

I liked it enough to watch another episode and see if it sticks. My wife was annoyed by his manic speaking style. I couldn't help feeling like he was a cross between House and Sheldon Cooper.

[Irishman]

Originally Posted by Meltdown

It's possible the husband really didn't know that she was in there, right? His plan was to focus the killer's attention on his wife, and then just stand back. I don't think he was intimately familiar with what the killer intended to do -- I don't think the killer himself had any idea what he intended to do. And, although I'm not 100% clear on the timeline, I think that at the time of the initial investigation he hadn't yet gone to see the killer.

I agree. On the final timeline, you are thinking that the killer came and killed the woman, the husband came home and reported the break in, Holmes found the body and confirmed the murder, then the husband went by the killer's house and terminated him, but missed the phone. Correct? That seems to work.

The alternate is that the husband found the break in, assumed the killer had completed the task, then he went round and killed the killer, then returned to report the incident. But if he didn't know about the safe room, that means he isn't sure she's dead.

Or else he really did know about the safe room. But then why would he leave it for the cops to stumble on, which they seemed ready to miss? It would have been far more reasonable in that respect to discover the break in, check the safe room, then call the cops. Right? If you had a safe room and you thought your loved one might have been home during an attack, wouldn't you check first? Unless you needed an alibi, 'cause you know what's in the safe room. But then you have to explain why you didn't check the safe room. Catch 22.

No, it makes far more sense for the husband not to know of the safe room, to set the killer in motion then arrange his own alibi. Come home, find the plot in motion but no body, engage the police, and discover the murder has been completed. Then go clean up the evidence that connects him to the killer.

[Irishman]

Reflecting on what others have said and what I saw, there are elements that stand out as significantly different about this Sherlock Holmes.

First off, the tatoos don't really fit. They seem like they would intrude upon his ability to do undercover work, right? Holmes was big on fake identities and make up and such to get information. Having significant tattoos on his body seems like that could pose potential for breaking his cover.

The bit about Holmes using the prostitute to keep his mind and body functioning was unlike the Victorian Holmes. Victorian Holmes would not bother, sex wasn't really a distraction to him anyway, and his Victorian sensibilities would have prevented it anyway. No, he'd take care of those needs alone with a computer if necessary, but wouldn't bother with bringing a woman in.

Victorian Holmes actually liked opera and would have been really pressed to interrupt that way. He would have either caught Watson at intermission, or proceeded without her.

Originally Posted by RealityChuck

2. The Google line, while funny, also diminishes him: the literary Holmes didn't need Google. This one should stay away from it.

Literary Holmes is always looking things up. He looks up stuff in his newpaper clippings and his own file on everyone noteworthy. He looks stuff up in encyclopedias. He looks up the identity of a particular description of a type of jellyfish.

3. The magic clues. This is a problem in a lot of current police procedural these days: a clue is discovered that happens to solve the case because of one lucky coincidence. On CSI, it's "that chip of paint came from a shade that was only sold in one store in Las Vegas and they have a record of every customer for the last ten years on tape." Here it was the "perfectly symmetrical" living room and the rice allergy.

Yes, they should be careful here. It's one thing to pull a serial number off a medical implant, it's another to pull a serial number off a shade of mauve paint.

4. Why the hell did Holmes crash the car? What did that accomplish other than to piss off the suspect?

This was another of those non-literary Holmes points. He has a fit of pique, and lashes out just to lash out. Not only damaging the suspect's car, but also Watson's. Victorian Holmes would never abuse his friend in such a manner without good reason, certainly not just to act out.

6. While I give the writers credit for making Lucy a Mets fan instead of the more expected Yankees, the final scene was just plain stupid. That's not the result of rational analysis; it's clairvoyance.

The writers certainly are straining hard to pull out those amazing acts of brilliance. There's no way mere statistics would indicate that line of results from reasoning. There's also the incident with the quoting lines from the movie he presumably hasn't seen before and is predicting from what has happened in the film. That seems unlikely. Of course, without seeing the rest of the film leading up, we don't see his reasoning, just the results, and the point is his results are always supposed to seem unlikely and astounding until we see the chain of reasoning. I think they're trying too hard to be clever. There should be an actual chain of reasoning for every wow, even if they neglect to show it to us. Right?

I do hope Watson lightens up as she becomes more interested in life again.

[StarvingButStrong]

The biggest improbability for me was that the husband supposedly talked his already beautiful wife into having a bunch of plastic surgeries. Say what? Everyone KNOWS plastic surgery can go wrong. Why would a beautiful woman muck around with her face like that?

For that matter, what kind of a plastic surgeon would consent to do that surgery??? He should have sent her off to see a shrink.

[twickster]

Are we doing a weekly thread for this?

I liked it. The solution was a twist I've never seen before (and I have decades of TV watching under my belt). It's also interesting watching Holmes and Watson's relationship develop -- apparently they're going to develop enough of a friendship that she'll stay on after her six-week gig is up. And, as someone who has sat through a few 12-step meetings in her day, watching both of them during those scenes was pretty entertaining.

I do not, overall, think this is the best doggone show on the air, and I don't think it's "better" than the BBC series -- though I also don't think it's really doing a head-to-head competition with the BBC series -- but I'm liking it so far and plan to continue to watch.