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.
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…
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…
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.
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.
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.
Did you mean 221B?
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.
It got you to watch it and it didn’t cost them extra. 
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.
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.
[QUOTE=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."
[/QUOTE]
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.
I seem to remember that the BBC version used a version of that quote.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.