"Elementary" - have you seen? Thoughts?

[tma]

I wasn't going to watch it, but....

I watched something last night that ended at 10:30 and planned on watching "The Daily Show at 11" - so... because I was multitasking w/ work on the computer (and I was lazy ) , I decided to watch the second half hour of "Elementary" (the CBS version of Sherlock). I tried to give it a shot- even though I knew with 99% certainty that it wasn't going to even Touch the BBC version.

I don't have an issue w/ the actor, I don't think that he is a horrid actor, but.... the whole feel of the show.... it *Isn't* Sherlock (in my opinion). It isn't that it is modern. It's just.... the characters didn't feel right. And the way that they did the relationship between Holmes and Warson felt "off". I'm not just basing this on how similar it was to BBC version- but to *all* verisions of Holnes and Watson that I have seen (Including "House" - in the first 2 seasons). I guess that it just felt very formulaic.

I hate to say this, but it doesn't surprise me. There is a *huge* difference between how BBC shows are crafted (maybe not All *as amazingly I haven't viewed them all ), and how the average US "series" are crafted. This was my concern going in. NOTE: I am not dismissing all US shows (I'm a huge fan of House in the early seasons, and of Law and Order). The thing is... for a "one hour" show- you get between 42- 48 minutes of actual show (including credits). Shows are also mass produced- our seasons are typically 22 episodes or so.

Looking at the BBC shows that I've seen- 1) they run longer (therefore one can set up a plot more throughly). "Sherlock" runs basically the *full* 90 minutes (possibly 88, but still.... ). So right there you are getting a good 50 minutes more of show. Which, particularly for intricate plots (like it seems that Sherlock Holmes plots should be) gives the writers a lot more time to work with. 2) There are fewer shows in one season- I think that this makes the quality of each show better. It's like authors in general, if you are cranking away book after book- there is a higher chance of one or more being sub-par. Inspiration doesn't run on a tight schedule. Even though it drives the fans nuts (including me) to have to wait- at least you know that it will be worth it. 3) I think... and I may be completely off-base with this, that there are fewer writers involved. I noticed with "House" - the two things that I think "sunk" the show were: when the show became "mainstream" and the writers tried to specifically write to the fans, and that after the writer's strike in particular- there was a huge laundry list of writers involved. I feel that this strains the consistancy.

Sorry... I wrote a total essay and a half there.

Has anyone seen it? What did you think?

[VoOs]

Part of me wants to have a look at Elementary just to... give it a chance before dismissing it as a BBC Sherlock (semi-)rip-off, but... I don't know. The whole thing seems to have been handled very oddly, with CBS initially wanting Moffat to write for them and what not.

I also thought it very strange that they cast Lee Miller as Holmes, seeing as he spent last year alternating roles with Benedict Cumberbatch in the play Frankenstein (they both played The Creature and Victor Frankenstein, switching roles every other night). I've seen both versions of that play, and I strongly prefer Cumberbatch's performance in both roles. Not that Miller was bad, mind you, but his performance didn't blow me away the way BC's did. I have the feeling the same thing would happen if I was to watch Elementary.

From the clips, summaries and reviews I've seen so far, Elementary seems more like your average crime show, rather than being a show based on the original Conan Doyle books.

I'm torn. I sort of want to give the show a chance, but at the same time I do get the impression somebody just wanted to make money out of BBC's success.

[*Dark_Side*]

If if a different actors had played the roles of Holmes and Watson, I don't think it would have helped. The show definitely wasn't the worst I've ever watched but it wasn't Sherlock Holmes. It just had a character with that name. My two main problems are, fist, Holmes had to much connection to the the world. He slept, ate, and actually had human emotions that he showed despite his denial. Along with this, he didn't do drugs so that he could think more clearly but to escape which for me is very un-Sherlock like. My second problem is the relationship. Watson didn't really seem to care eaither way about Holmes and had less emotions then him. Plus Holmes was clearly trying to drive her away and didn't even want to bring her along with him. Holmes and Watson, whether in the books or tv shows, always had a natural chemistry that drew them together and there was a complete lack in this show. The actors could have been acting along side a wall and had a better chemistry.

[tma]

@ "Dark Side"- Yes!! That's exactly what I was thinking with regards to the relationship. Watson almost seemed more "Holmes"like in some cases than Holmes did.

And I agree that it wasn't a horrible show- it just *wasn't* Sherlock Homes for me..

[Always]

Part of me wants to have a look at Elementary just to... give it a chance before dismissing it as a BBC Sherlock (semi-)rip-off, but... I don't know. The whole thing seems to have been handled very oddly, with CBS initially wanting Moffat to write for them and what not.

I also thought it very strange that they cast Lee Miller as Holmes, seeing as he spent last year alternating roles with Benedict Cumberbatch in the play Frankenstein (they both played The Creature and Victor Frankenstein, switching roles every other night). I've seen both versions of that play, and I strongly prefer Cumberbatch's performance in both roles. Not that Miller was bad, mind you, but his performance didn't blow me away the way BC's did. I have the feeling the same thing would happen if I were to watch Elementary.

From the clips, summaries and reviews I've seen so far, Elementary seems more like your average crime show, rather than being a show based on the original Conan Doyle books.

I'm torn. I sort of want to give the show a chance, but at the same time I do get the impression somebody just wanted to make money out of BBC's success.

Honestly, all of this. I personally haven't watched it yet, and don't really know if I will, particularly for the reasons VoOs stated above.

And I read somewhere (I can't be certain it's true, because it is the internet, but I believe it to be real, personally) that the writers of Elementary specifically wanted Johnny Lee to play the part of Holmes, and once it had been offered to him, he actually went to see if Benedict would give him permission to play the role. (Due to the fact that they are friends, and Ben had the role first, and yadda yadda yadda.) Apparently, Ben said something along the lines of 'Well I won't be pleased if you do, but we're actors, and work is work, so make up your own mind. I won't blame you." and then Johnny just kind of jumped on the role and boom; Elementary was a go.

I'm a bit annoyed that Johnny even took the part, to be honest. But, I haven't watched it yet, so for all I know he could be brilliant.

However, from what everyone else here is saying, I'll assume for the time being that perhaps he really wasn't.

[VoOs]

Apparently, Ben said something along the lines of 'Well I won't be pleased if you do, but we're actors, and work is work, so make up your own mind. I won't blame you." and then Johnny just kind of jumped on the role and boom; Elementary was a go.

Misquote alert! Benedict never said such a thing. He was quoted out of context. He has, on the contrary, defended Elementary on a number of occasions, saying that there's more than enough room for both shows to co-exist.

(Dear lord, my obsessive fangirl is showing... )

Still, I think the people on the BBC Sherlock team have every right to be cynical about Elementary. CBS simply jumped on the 'Modern Holmes' bandwagon a bit too soon for it to feel okay.

[Always]

Misquote alert! Benedict never said such a thing. He was quoted out of context. He has, on the contrary, defended Elementary on a number of occasions, saying that there's more than enough room for both shows to co-exist.

Ah! Thank you for verifying that. I wasn't sure.

But I agree. Still feels a bit too soon, if you ask me.

[VoOs]

Okay, so me and my best friend sat down to watch the first episode of Elementary last night, and... well.

I really tried to watch it with an open mind and non-judgemental eyes, but damn, did it suck. Holmes and Watson had close to zero chemistry, the deductions were rubbish (the world's only consulting detective predicting soap dialogue and baseball matches? Really? ) and the plot wasn't engaging in the slightest.

Miller's Holmes barely seemed to have anything in common with Conan Doyle's Holmes. And Liu's Watson... no. Just no. I have nothing against a female Watson (even though I would have been much more interested in seeing a female Holmes, to be honest), but this performance was just so pale in comparison to those of Freeman, Law, Burke or Solomin.

So, no. Not a fan of this version. And not very suprised.

[doggo]

I have nothing against a female Watson (even though I would have been much more interested in seeing a female Holmes, to be honest), but this performance was just so pale in comparison to those of Freeman, Law, Burke or Solomin.

Damn, I have to hop in and say - that's something I would DEFINITELY want to see!

... although I somehow belive that this world sucks waaaay too much for something like that to happen.

[tma]

@ VoOs - It's funny that you said that re: a female Sherlock being more interesting. I feel the exact same way. I think that with the way that the sexuality of Holmes is generally done (sometimes asexual, sometimes clueless or a almost a litttle bit biased vs. the opposite gender)- I just think that it would be interesting to see that played out with a woman. Plus- a very "left sided" personality- how many roles for females like that exist??