Elementary. Until Thursday night it was, to those of us who didn't catch the leaked pilot, something of a wild card. Would it be terrible? Would it be alright? Would it be an insult to the name Sherlock Holmes?

Well, the moment has passed and we can all breathe a sigh of relief knowing that at least the latter is not true. I don't watch cop shows and I never have. People tell me that I should watch NCIS or CSI or those kinds of shows, and I watched a few episodes of The Mentalist a while back, but I find them incredibly formulaic and somewhat boring. Unfortunately, Elementary was no different. I agree with Lyndsay Faye when she says that Joan Watson bears almost no resemblance to the John Watson of canon.

The role of John Watson as a handler was introduced in Sherlock and only amplified in Elementary, something that works between these two sets of actors/characters but actually has no basis in canon. I believe this is because directors and writers hate characters that are doing nothing, and with the introduction of this concept, Sherlock managed to avoid the Nigel Bruce bumbling Watson stereotype but failed to capture the true relationship between the two that we seen in the canon and the Granada series. Elementary only furthers Watson's role as Holmes's babysitter, which creates rapport between the two but makes it drift further from canon.

Holmes's sexuality was another sore spot for me. As far as we know, in canon he is asexual, and in Sherlock he is something like sapiosexual if he feels sexual attraction at all. This works, at least for me, although a real purist would condemn Sherlock for the inaccuracy of the Adler-Holmes relationship. The idea of Sherlock hiring out prostitutes is, I suppose, just another interpretation of how the very gentlemanly Victorian Holmes would change in the modern day, but, (hold your breath, please)  like the way Sherlock does it better.

It did have good points, as SH pointed out. The beekeeping, mania, constant boredom, etc. all worked very well for a characterization of Holmes, and I believe that while Jonny Lee Miller leaves something to be desired, Lucy Liu does an excellent performance with the lines she is given.

It wasn't terrible although it did feel dumbed down (it takes me at least half a dozen times watching Sherlock to catch everything, while I think that another go at this pilot would do it) I don't believe that's the fault of the creators, it's simply the format and the director, because Paul McGuigan is frankly a genius and Eros Lyn is very good as well. They both add in lots of easter egg details.

7.5/10.

I liked your review, nice! And agree with most of it too.

I actually really wanted to HATE this show, but I can't quite bring myself to do that. 

I will give it  a fair view, when it airs here.

I read the recap of the new episode. It's good that they added in the violin but as a self-hardened Elementary hater (I'm sorry to say) all I can think was that I'd expected it already, so no points for Elementary.

I really need to get out of this mindset.

Ok, I have just finished watching the first 2 episodes.

From the first moment I had an inkling as to what was going on with this one. Let's look at this as an updated version of the ACD canon that would be appealing to the 'masses', which is what their intent was. It wasn't their intent to copy BBC Sherlock so we must wipe that one to the side for now.
I hate to inform you all, but they have done exactly what they set out to do.

Society today has this overwhelming urge to analyse everything and everyone. It also has this obsession with 'excess'.
The makers of this show have taken the little character quirks of the canon Holmes and used them to excess in the extreme.
- Canon Holmes had hints of 'a habit'; so Elementary Holmes is a full blown recovering addict.
- Canon Holmes would make a few 'brilliant deductions' during each case; so Elementary Holmes seems to 'run off at the mouth' with deductions almost non-stop.
- Canon Holmes would use odd methods to deduce facts; so Elementary Holmes uses nothing BUT odd methods, some completely unnecessary at times.
- Canon Holmes kept bees later in life, after he retired; so Elementary Holmes skips through time somewhat & lands him with that hobby straight away (why waste time introducing every possible trait, let's get it over & done with)
- Canon Holmes played a violin; so Elementary Holmes makes a spectacle of burning one in some kind of 'tantrum' only to settled down later & simply play it (one MUST have drama before we can settle down to 'normal' mustn't we?)

The list of 'excess' goes on, but you get the gist. In just 2 episodes, they have covered a vast majority of Holmes' traits. At this pace they are going to end up rehashing a lot of stuff quite soon.

What they have failed to do is keep the one element that made ACD's canon truly wonderful and truly believable.
For the most part, all the cases solved were 'elementary'. They were based on normal, everyday events. The clues were ordinary, possibly mundane facts. But once strung together & woven into the riddle, these small observations, produced answers that when we looked back we would say ' well that was so obvious and yet we all missed it'.
They have lost the simplistic beauty of 'the everyday' things being important.

Now, adding BBC Sherlock into the equation, they too have 'updated' things. Yes, some simplistic things have become a little more complicated (as have our lives), but for the most part the creators HAVE tried to keep the premise of 'the simplest' of explanations being the answer. that premise is something that 'old Sherlockians' hold close to their heart. The beauty in the 'simple solution' makes you pause and admire the writings of ACD. How clever of him to take the 'average' , add a few 'normal' twists & turns, produce complete bewilderment and then unravel the 'normal' for all to see and leave us thinking 'that WAS very elementary'.

I think I shall nickname this series " My Ale Entry" because they have lost the meaning of Elementary completely.

Well, that's friendship for you.

I know. I was just referring to Benedict being supportive to his mate.

Thanks for the in-depth review, Kazza. Props.

Continuing with the focus on canon, I read one review that talks about how Elementary obeys the "spirit of the books" much better than Sherlock does. In my opinion, this is completely and utter delusion. I read every story and every novel, and in my opinion the "spirit" of the books is something mostly along the lines of:

Watson, old buddy, some poor bloke has gotten himself framed/robbed/killed/involved in some other unfortunate mishap and has requested my help. I've been really, really, really bored lately and have decided to take the case instead of sinking back into my cocaine/morphine-induced stupor (did I mention I've been really bored lately?). Since you happen to have come back to Baker Street at precisely the right time would you do me the honor of coming along and writing another one of your romanticized case files for me/do some other favor that might or might not (read: probably) jeopardize your life and contribute to the case?

Elementary follows this formula to the letter.
...not. But there might just be another show out there that does.

Swanpride wrote:

on or another (I think the worst is the one with the ape human). But this is the basic concept for it. I doubt though that this concept really fits into what the american networks consider a good show. I think Columbo was the last one who really operated this way, with no action scenes thrown in every other episdoe. Nowadays it seems to be all about the drama and about action.

The Creeping Man was so incredibly bizarre I didn't know what to think. I just thought "Well, okay then..." and moved on. Where did ACD get the idea for that one? Jeez. One thing I like about Sherlock much, much more than Elementary is that 90 minutes gives it ample time to focus on every aspect of reaching a solution. The problem with any of these plotlines is that Sherlock Holmes isn't a real person and therefore it's impossible to write him as if he was. ACD made mistakes, Steven Moffat makes mistakes, Rob Doherty makes mistakes. I think everyone's preference depends somewhat on which mistakes they're more willing to overlook.

One issue I have with this show after viewing a larger body of work is Sherlock's attainability as a genius. Jonny Lee Miller's Sherlock has more personality traits in common with me than any other adaptation I've seen. I actually find it kind of obnoxious.

Particularly his reaction when he sees Peter Talbott dead of an overdose. His reaction was really quite emotional. ("NO, I'M FINE, I'M WORKING ON A CASE")