Laurie R. King Virtual Book Club discussion
note: This topic has been closed to new comments.
Archived Off-Topic
>
New CBS Sherlock Show "Elementary"
Erin, I saw this about the same time that I saw my first Sherlock season, so it has been in the planning for a long time...my take was (oh, they're trying to do a serious Monk)...I must be the only person in the world by the ratings who does not care for "Monk".From the trailer (there is a separate trailer) I thought the Watson was poorly conceived and not well acted...
I'm old fashioned but I still think the best American take on Sherlock was Spock and McCoy of Startrek fame.
Mod
There's been a ton of articles and controversy about the series. I like this blog that Lyndsay Faye wrote on it:
http://www.criminalelement.com/blogs/...
Mod
Don't feel bad...I bet I watched House for four years before someone mentioned it was a Holmes pastiche...I think I physically slapped myself in the head! Duh!
Mod
Yeah, House is definitely more than a nod. In one of those crazy things, I never got into House when it started, but then I saw an episode or two and want to watch it, but only if I can watch it from the beginning. And watching TV shows on Netflix that aren't on instant is such a pain.I saw the preview for "Elementary" a while back -- I think it has potential. We'll see what they do with the stories. None of those are copyrighted anymore. Hopefully, the creators reach enough to really do something different than "Sherlock" rather than just try to pretend they aren't copying it.
Mod
Erin wrote: "Where Sherlock is essentially taking the actual Holmes storylines and modernizing them,..."I have been wondering what they will do for an encore, after having taken the three major stories in Season 2 and reworked them so well...it's like they have already mined the mother lode....
The emotional intensity of the last episode will be difficult to replicate.
Elementary will have to come up with new stories. A series on the big 3 US networks runs about 22 episodes. Even if they stuck to the stories one per episode, they'll run out of them after 2-1/2 seasons.But that's okay. We've seen lots of people (Laurie King!) come up with good new stories for Holmes.
I like that they're using Gregson instead of the more famous Lestrade.
From the preview Miller doesn't appear to be as bad as I'd expected although I keep thinking 'Eli Stone, Eli Stone'. I realize the BBC adaptations are very popular, but I'm not impressed.
I'm more concerned they're going to take off on the "sociopath" angle from Sherlock, push it even further and turn him into Monk. Seriously, he's licking the floor in one scene of the preview. (Not that Monk would ever lick a floor, but you get my point).Holmes is a stickler for incredible detail and a scientist. His methods may combine those two to an extent that it's over the heads of the average mortal, but he's not really a nutcase. He's more of a brilliant asshole (like House). I like the Aspberger-y Sherlock in the BBC version, but I think that's pushing the envelope a bit and you can't really go further.
Anyway, I think it might be quite good if they do something different from Sherlock.
Erin wrote: "Omg, I hadn't even noticed the Spock/McCoy parallel! Granted I'm not the biggest trekkie. But that's totally awesome! ..."Not sure I agree with the parallel. Yes, Spock is emotionless and entirely logical (and very observant), but neither he nor McCoy is the dominant personality here -- Kirk is. I think both represent different aspects of Kirk's personality. (And for most of us, logic and emotion are both represented in our personalities.)
I guess I am alone in my feeling that I do not want a female Dr. Watson. If they must have a female lead why not have Mary Russell and Sherlock Holmes take to the small screen. I would watch that one. I won't watch the American generic version of my favorite British character.
Melody wrote: "I guess I am alone in my feeling that I do not want a female Dr. Watson. If they must have a female lead why not have Mary Russell and Sherlock Holmes take to the small screen. I would watch that o..."I look at this version more like House than Sherlock – probably more pastiche than true modernization. I don't think the point is to have female lead, any female lead, but rather to stir the pot. This Watson is a very different character - rather than a friend, she's an employee, a medical professional that is there to "cure" Holmes of his drug addiction whether he wants it or not. So, to me, it's better that they made her a woman, because its clearer that it's not the same character.
Sabrina wrote: "There was a big legal battle between the creators of Sherlock and Elementary. I guess CBS approached Moffat wanting to make a American version of Sherlock and he said no, so they went ahead with t..."Here is Moffat in his own words--discussion starts 1:50 into video
http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/05/2...
I have often wondered at the label attached to Sherlock as being a drug addict. In my little world he is not an addict, he does not use cocaine or opium daily to maintain his life. In the backwoods of Ky. we call what he does, " recreational user". So how does he need Watson to cure an addiction that he does not have?
Melody, I've never seen him as an addict either, but in the original stories Watson is very disapproving of Holmes' drug use. I think the addict label is just our modern puritanism.
Mod
Or maybe we've just seen far more extreme and less functional addicts lately, so our perspective on what it means to be an addict has changed? It seems like we like middle ground descriptions a lot more now than was the case in the past. Like the fact that we differentiate between "recreational user" and "addict".
Ah, but the term and show is being set in real time so the term addict is used in present time also...is this not true? So my point again is Sherlock actually a cocaine addict?
I meant that the addict label for the new Elementary was because of our modern puritansim. Heaven forfend that you show a drug user in a TV show that isn't an addict! Because if you so much a look at a recreational drug you'll be come an addict. At least that's what the after school specials and PSAs tell us. We have no way in contemporary culture to introduce drug use without it being an addiction. Can you imagine if they showed him using drugs without being an "addict"? There would be public outcry from all corners that the network was "promoting" drug use to 11 year olds or something. HBO might have greater leeway with this, but not network TV.
Of course, when Sherlock Holmes was first created this wasn't the case.
I tend to agree with you on this. I guess that is why I really like the PBS series so much, they rarely if ever mention drugs in reference to Holmes. I will be surprised if they actually show him using drugs on Elementary, but then they showed House popping pills all the time. Holmes also smoked cigars and cigarettes and that is a legit addiction, maybe that is the drug she is helping him quit....
Mod
Yeah, got to love the early 1900 ads for Cocaine toothache drops for children. Or liquids with morphine in it for children who were teething and needed some relief. (here's a link if anyone is interested: http://wings.buffalo.edu/aru/preprohi...
This is a really interesting discussion as far as what is appropriate for TV content. Even in BBC's Sherlock, they got rid of his iconic pipe and cigarettes and replaced it with nicotine patches.
After reading the program premise for Elementary, I'm not too optimistic about it, but am willing to give the show a chance. Though I really really have a hard time seeing any warmth in Lucy Liu. She strikes me as someone who would have been perfect for a female Sherlock Holmes...
One thing to remember, in the 21st century Holmes's cocaine usage is illegal whether recreational or an addiction. Apparently that's the reason for Watson as a therapist. As is obvious by the ads Sabrina quoted, cocaine and morphine were legal during the 'real' Holmes's time. Of course everyone knows one of the original ingredients of CocaCola was cocaine. House's Vicodin was also legal although obviously he was misusing it and was addicted.
BBC's Sherlock shows the problem of putting Holmes in a modern setting: take away his pipe and 7% solution?
And he compensates with a 'three nicotine patch solution' :)
Mod
That was a riot! You expected to see him role up his sleeve and see needle marks...instead the patches! Erin, hadn't he quit smoking...at Watson's urging, and was in withdrawal...remember the scene during the "Hound" when he gets right in the face of the kid he's interviewing, practically sucking in the cigarette smoke the kid exhales....
There's also a scene in 'Scandal' where Mycroft gives him a cigarette after he's viewed 'Irene's' body. I was watching it with the commentary and Benedict said how much he hated it and how it really made him ill the next day! Maybe that's a more practical reason for taking the smoking out...you don't want to kill the star...
Elizabeth wrote: "One thing to remember, in the 21st century Holmes's cocaine usage is illegal whether recreational or an addiction. Apparently that's the reason for Watson as a therapist. As is obvious by the ads S..."Elizabeth wrote: "One thing to remember, in the 21st century Holmes's cocaine usage is illegal whether recreational or an addiction. Apparently that's the reason for Watson as a therapist. As is obvious by the ads S..."
You must not remember much of House since in more than one episode he wrote his own RX off of Wilsons
pad and stole or lied to the pharmacist and conned his way to getting his Viccodin. So the legal issue is questionable at best. They also showed his shooting up in more than one episode. This also suspect as far as being legal, and it did happen on prime time tv that kids would watch. Methinks the networks are sending mixed messages with some of these shows..
Mod
pad and stole or lied to the pharmacist and conned his way to getting his Viccodin. So the legal issue is questionable at best. They also showed his shooting up in more than one episode. This also suspect as far as being legal, and it did happen on prime time tv that kids would watch. Methinks the networks are sending mixed messages with some of these shows.. "
Yeah, but they also crescendo-ed that whole thing with him in an extreme downward spiral of losing everyone in his life and ending up in prison (granted it took a couple of seasons of escalation)...so I think their overall "don't do drugs, kids" message probably holds.
Erin wrote: "Melody wrote: "You must not remember much of House since in more than one episode he wrote his own RX off of Wilsonspad and stole or lied to the pharmacist and conned his way to getting his Viccod..."
Erin how many kids do you have? And what ages?? Most kids that I am around don't care for programs like Sherlock Holmes or House (No Zombies or Vampires) the others are old enough that all they do remember is the use not the message three seasons later...And no one here watches the old big three networks they watch cable shows such as Weeds..
or Family Guy and the Comedy Channel not Disney
Mod
Melody wrote:You must not remember much of House since in more than one episode he wrote his own RX off of Wilsonspad and stole or lied to the pharmacist and conned his way to getting his Viccodin.
I assume you don't mean that to sound quite as insulting as it does . . .
I'm quite aware of House's drug problems (only missed one or two episodes), I was merely pointing out that in the 21st Century Vicodin is legal and Cocaine is not.
Yes, but now that it's started, what do people think? Watch it? Just go out and buy the "Sherlock" DVDs? Stick to books?
See my comment under "Chit Chat." (I forgot that we had this thread.) I was predisposed to like it, but I just hated it.
Not impressed either. The beard has to go!
I haven't watched it yet, but will as soon as I have time. I assume that none of you like the Robert Downie Jr. versions either?
Actually, I liked the first Robert Downey one quite a bit, but have not seen the second one.
I think there may only be one more season of Sherlock (BBC)... apparently Cumberbatch has become an item and is in big demand for other projects and Martin Freeman has been tied up with "The Hobbit" and more... and the writer, producer and director are pretty busy with other things (such as Doctor Who)...I bought the DVDs of the first two season and am glad I did...I'd recommend them as an addition to anyone's library...they stand up well under re-vieweing, which is the criteria I use to purchase DVDs
Mod
I really disliked Holmes' temper tantrums; he's never struck me as a temper tantrum kind of guy in any incarnation I've seen him. It seemed like they were using the temper angle to give Watson a window to fit into. Like rather than the usual Watson role, they wanted someone more like a Watson/Russell who could be both the sounding-board and apprentice...or something. And Holmes is a tad more manic than he's usually depicted...though I'm not sure that's completely out of character, just not as common in other Holmes versions.
This show has about as much in common with canon as House does. And thinking of it in that way, I will probably give it a few more episodes to sort itself out.
Mod
I'm sure they'd be able to get more Sherlock done if the producing gods hadn't decided to make The Hobbit three movie episodes long. What are they even going to fill the time up with?? It's a less complicated story than LotR by half at least.
Rose wrote: "I haven't watched it yet, but will as soon as I have time. I assume that none of you like the Robert Downie Jr. versions either?"I liked the RDJ movies very much, but they are a COMPLETELY different animal. (My brother called it 'steampunk Iron Man'.) They are a loose take on the characters, just a bit of fun, an excuse for the lead to smart off and Watson to look exasperated.
I am intrigued by Elementary, but will probably not watch it till it's out on DVD... so much good TV already in the pipe.
I wish Moffat would let DW go already, he's MUCH better at Sherlock! But I suspect it's true that his leads will be moving on now. Wish he'd made more episodes while he had them.
Elisabeth wrote:I liked the RDJ movies very much, but they are a COMPLETELY different animal. (My brother calls it 'steampunk Iron Man'.)I like your brother's description. I did not like the RDJ version. I refused to pay to watch them, but did see the first on cable and then on an international flight the second was a choice so I watched it and wished I hadn't. Yuck! No story, no vestige of Canon and my heavens, Mycroft nude before a lady who is a guest in his home!! Richie and company have made a mockery of SH and that I will never forgive. Of course I am older and set in my ways, LOL and it is just my humble opinion.
I'll go out on a limb and say that I like Sherlock, AND RDJ, AND Elementary. Each interpretation is SO different; I enjoy them all. I hope the leads stay with Sherlock -- it's a gem. I admit, I was afraid that CBS would screw up with Elementary but was pleasantly surprised at the first episode. (Granted, I watched it on the dvr and was able to speed through commercials -- HATE how an hour long show is only 42 or so minutes on networks!!) The female Watson angle will certainly take it in a different direction than Sherlock.
Mod
I hope that doesn't mean what it usually means when they put two people of the opposite sex together in a show...I don't think my brain can handle a Holmes/Watson romance.
My problem is that Jeremy Brett and his Granada series are so firmly planted in my brain that I find it impossible to accept any of the series/movies that have come after.
Elizabeth wrote: "My problem is that Jeremy Brett and his Granada series are so firmly planted in my brain that I find it impossible to accept any of the series/movies that have come after."I thought much the same, Elizabeth, but found the BBC Sherlock a delight mainly because the producers know and love Canon and this is their fanboy homage to it. From the casting to the writing to the production values, each is perfection. IMHO
The RDJ movies have none of these attributes from casting on, and Elementary is a poor attempt at ripping off BBC Sherlock by people who neither know or care about Canon, again, IMHO.
Alice wrote: "Elizabeth wrote: "My problem is that Jeremy Brett and his Granada series are so firmly planted in my brain that I find it impossible to accept any of the series/movies that have come after."I tho..."
Alice, I agree 100%. I also love the Brett series, and it is obvious to me that Sherlock is made by people who love the characters and the original stories. The other stuff may be fun if you are flexible in your tastes, but it is not the same thing at all.
Erin wrote: "I actually didn't hate Elementary. It wasn't stellar, but it wasn't terrible either. I think I was more interested in Watson's story than Holmes, maybe; since they through in a big twist to the d..."I watched Episode 2 last night and liked it better. The roles were fleshed out more, everyone seemed to speak a bit louder and, best of all, Sherlock took the marbles out of his mouth so he could be understood!!
I was never a fan of the Jeremy Brett casting and portrayal, not in the crazy way others love it. I like it well enough, but I thought it was just a bit too tight and prissy.I HATED the RDJ movie (I saw it on a plane like Alice).
At any rate, I went into Elementary willing to let it stand on its own. I tried not to compare it to Sherlock or Canon or anything else. From that perspective it's a decent TV show that might have some longevity to it. It's probably more like a serious Monk than an American Sherlock. Like House it's inspired by the idea of the characters, but isn't really an updated version.
Clearly the writers are not taking their story-lines from Canon. The characters have virtually nothing in common with Canon, nor does their relationship. The "companion" thing seems forced. I don't know why they didn't just use the Canon approach of two people needing roommates. Younger people finding roommates that they barely know is still pretty common in most major cities. The Sherlock character is wild and out of control, not Holmes-like at all. The Watson character is bossy and illogical.
I think they would have done much better to stick with the traditional Watson background story (injured in the Afghanistan war) and possibly make the injury something that prevents her from being a practicing surgeon and she's re-training in another specialty or something.
But if you block out it's supposed inspiration and just take it at face value, as a new detective show, it's not bad.
This topic has been frozen by the moderator. No new comments can be posted.
http://youtu.be/sUuIm5Xk2mk
Anyone else see this yet? Any thoughts? I'm curious, I'll admit. At least they aren't trying to replicate the BBC Sherlock.