I've just finished watching it now, and was actually pretty surprised that I rather enjoyed it. There were some canon references and uses of classic lines - "I don't guess I deduce" being one that springs to mind...and Sherlock basically deducing the hell out of Joan and knowing all her history and she being all like "What? How did you know that?"

Really enjoyed the Beekeeping nod - that was a real "YESSS!" moment for me. The whole thing about him being a recovering addict is fine, because that's kind of canon but taken to a modern day extreme, which is all good. I hear what you guys are saying about the chemistry, it's not quite there yet, but I suppose they're expecting to build it up over several episodes.

I liked the deductions and the way he spoke really fast, there were some laugh out loud moments which is always a positive. There were a couple of rather weird bits though, that stuck out as being not in character at all...

OK, so when he loses his temper with the girl and shouts at her, that works for me because it's a tactic, he's trying to push her. Then Watson tells him to leave and go to the car. First of all, I thought it was weird that he listened to her, then when Watson came out and had the answers they were after he explains he did it on purpose because he knew she would open up to Watson afterwards. I thought that was pretty brilliant and very Holmes-like. But then, later on when he's apologising to Watson he says he made that up and in reality he was "embarassed" because he "lost his temper". Oooh. That doesn't really work for me. Holmes would never lose his temper without there being a reason for it, he's always in control.

The second thing was when Holmes rams Watson's car into the suspect/murderer's car. That just made NO SENSE. He basically did it just for fun? There was no actual rational reasoning behind it. Which was just...odd. I really can't imagine Sherlock Holmes doing anything like that, unless it was to serve some kind of purpose.

Other than those two points, and the obvious fact that they made Watson into a woman and set the whole thing in New York, I thought it was pretty good. I guess if you bare in mind that it's a "loose adaptation" and not supposed to be really strictly canon, then you can sort of just roll with it and enjoy it for what it is. I'm looking forward to seeing how the series progresses, and whether they'll tackle some of the more well known Holmes stories...I'm pretty sure the case they solved was a completely made up one right? It didn't ring any bells as being something from the canon but I could be wrong. It'll be interesting to see if they bring in Moriarty at some point and attempt a version of Final Problem. Surely every Holmes adaptation has to try that eventually.

Just watched Elementary online.  Best part about that was not having to watch the commercials, which meant I only spent 45 minutes viewing the show.

My review: Ordinary.  JLM's Sherlock had no redeeming features.  I don't even think he resembled the Sherlock Holmes of canon, and although I've only read two of the books and one set of short stories and therefore am no expert on the character, even I could see this Sherlock is not a faithful portrayal. 

I suppose I was first turned off by seeing JLM's underwear in the scene where we first meet him: Not at all appealing!  And those tatoos don't help, either.  (I'm not a fan of tatoos at all.)  He seemed manic instead of cerebral.  He talked way too much about his feelings and seemed to actually care about Watson's feelings--the "real" Sherlock I don't think would do either.  I recognized some lines from stories but JLM's delivery of them was flat, I thought.

I wasn't impressed with Lucy Liu or Aidan Quinn.  I've never been a fan of Liu's and here she just seemed to pout a lot.  When Quinn talked, it sounded like he had marbles in his mouth and was trying to channel Columbo.  I don't know why Sherlock keeps calling her "Watson" instead of "Joan" or "Ms. Watson."  (I did hear "Miss Watson" once towards the end.)  No one I know calls a woman by her surname to her face.

The plot itself was okay but left a lot to coincidence; I did think the resolution was somewhat clever, though.

What I did like was the Hispanic detective--the fact that he was Hispanic.  Otherwise, he came across sort of like Anderson--not very bright and always one step behind Sherlock.  The character was used just as a foil for Sherlock to be able to explain his reasoning to the audience, in case we didn't figure things out ourselves.  The other thing I liked was the background violin music that was occasionally heard; that was a nice touch.

But, overall, Elementary is not a show I would watch again.  There was nothing unique or special about it the way there is with Sherlock.

I'm in the middle of it right now. I disliked the woman walking out of Holmes's apartment, and his assertion that she was satisfying his physical needs. That was just a big strike against the pilot.

Surprisingly, it's gotten better thus far, but still can't hold a candle to the show we all hold near and dear.

A review on BBC Radio 4's Front Row programme last night can be summarised as follows:
Very much a formulaic detective series.

JLM slightly underplays the role of Sherlock (unlike Benedict's portrayal which was described as a tour de force). He is very intense and 'bottled up'. He uses a smartphone a lot but nothing appears on screen.

Lucy Lui was alright, fine but didn't have much to do other than be irritated at Sherlock Holmes.

To be fair they tried not to compare with BBC Sherlock but it was rather unavoidable. Reviewer says he will see how it pans out in the longer run. Basically it was fine.

Ah! You can always, always rely on Den of Geek for a brilliant review. Cuts to the chase and really funny at times. This is, I think, a very fair review (bearing in mind we don't get Elementary here until late next month).

www.denofgeek.com/tv/elementary/22781/elementary-pilot-episode-review

ancientsgate wrote:

[I think when it comes to American episodic TV it's a mistake to judge a series on its first episode out of the gate. Many shows take many weeks to really develop the characters, and to give the actors a chance to find their legs, as it were.

I definitely agree that many episodic TV shows take a while to fully develop.  However, I stopped watching contemporary TV shows a few years ago, because I just don't have the time anymore.  And that's from someone who used to plan her life around what was on TV on each night--I used to spend a good 3-4 hours watching TV.  Until I got involved in message boards and such...

Anyway, for me, there was nothing in Elementary to distinguish it from any other cop show.  Those reviews are all correct--there's no reason to call JLM's character Sherlock other than for publicity.  It didn't hook me, and if a show doesn't do that in its first episode, then I don't feel like spending my time waiting for that to happen, especially as it never might.  Neither the characters nor the setting nor the plot were unusual enough to make me want to give it more time.

Just my opinion!   

First of all, I didn't watch Elementary yet so this has nothing to do with my opinion about this show.
However, I stumbled upon this very positive review on tumblr from which I quote just one passage.

(...) Because Elementary is explicitly about their relationship it also feels like a much deeper show than Sherlock, in which the poorly-reformulated mysteries form the inarguable focus of the show and no tangible emotional or intellectual connection has ever been made between Sherlock and John. The fact is that a modern adaptation of Sherlock Holmes needs to have a modern sensibility — to sex, to class, to race, and to storytelling; that’s why I feel comfortable saying at this point that Elementary is the true modern adaptation of Holmes and Watson from the way it is structured (and it is important that a woman of colour is given such a prominent and essential narrative role, particularly in the context of Sherlock‘s Orientalist racism) to the way it is executed. This is a show where Sherlock can be destroyed by a woman, and reconstructed by a woman.�
—   
-Mary O. (Elementary 1.01, “Pilot� )

Just two questions: 1. No connection between Sherlock and John? WTF have many of us been talking about for months? 2. Is this a TV show or a politically correct anti-discrimination programme? End of rant. 


YES - this. All of it.

Mattlocked wrote:

Interesting review....
Didn't you know that every show has to have an education mission?
Just entertaining?? Nooo, that's baaad.

Think I have to watch it soon....

Sorry, I forgot about the mission. What a pity that Sherlock isn't at all about their relationship. Must have been hallucinating for months. 
And I think I'll have a look at it, too. For whatever it's worth. 

Irony could be the only explanation how this review would make any understandable sense to me, KP.....
Maybe (hopefully?) you're right.

I am sure Lucy Lui must just LOVE being seen as the token woman of colour who can kick arse. How incredibly condescending!

As for the lack of relationship between John and Sherlock I can only assume the writer only watched the first two episodes of the first season.

I do however agree that the racial stereotyping of The Blind Banker is let us say unfortunate but I am reminded of the Simpsons and Big Bang Theory episodes which revolved around the impossibility of, as an example, someone with a disability actually not being a nice person.

Do the tongs not actually exist? Best make sure that ALL baddies are WASPs from now on then! Oh! I just realised that probably means that Jim Moriarty is all wrong too!

Last edited by Davina (September 30, 2012 4:39 pm)