We can’t help but assume that the name of the new American television adaptation of the stories of Sherlock Holmes, “Elementary,” hails from the often ill-quoted line, “Elementary, my dear Watson;” which never actually appeared in any of the 60 Sherlock Holmes stories written by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. In fact, the first known use of this phrase was in the 1915 novel, Psmith Journalist, by P. G. Wodehouse, and then it was attributed again to Holmes, in a movie in 1929.
If this level of Holmes knowledge speaks to the research and development being done on the new American series, we Holmes fans around the world are already cringing, and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle is turning in his grave. Not to mention, linguistically, to call anything Holmes related ‘elementary,’ is an insult to the most beloved fictional detective in all of history. His legendary scientific deductions were anything but, and when Doyle did write Holmes to use the word ‘elementary,’ it was only to discredit his own deductions as being simplistic and obvious.
To Sherlock, even his most brilliant of conclusions felt basic and self-evident, as he always seemed to expect so much more of himself and the power of his mind. To us, naming the show “Elementary,” of all the powerful words that could justly be attributed to the character of Sherlock Holmes, is a testament to the level of sophistication with which this notable character will be treated in this program, and doesn’t bode well for the show’s success. There are a vast number of well-received adaptations to Doyle’s various stories, many of which vary tremendously from the canon of written stories, themselves.
Yet, with the worldwide acclaim and international success of the incredible BBC Series “Sherlock,” which buries its innumerable classic Holmes homages deep within the confines of modern day London; it seems that an American show about Sherlock Holmes in New York with his faithful assistant, “Joan” Watson, is not only being done with incredibly bad timing, but also in rather poor taste.
If you agree with us that it is time to allow BBC’s “Sherlock” to shine, which has done nothing but promote a resurgence of readers’ passionate interest in Doyle’s actual stories, and that the upcoming American series should either stand down or be prepared to be as original, innovative, and true enough to the Holmes stories for serious fans to appreciate; please visit The "Elementary" Problem website.
Well, As I have stated all along, we Sherlockians right now have an embarrassment of riches. We have a Sherlock for every like. Brett and Granada for the purists, Downey for the period loving Holmes fan wanting more adventure ,humor and excitement. Cumberbatch and Freeman for the modern Holmes and Watson with serious nods to the Canon. And for those who ever wondered if Holmes can make it in modern New York City against current tech, we have Miller and Liu with, incidentally,no gay undertones. Now, for me, I love them all and I now have a Holmes for every mood. How many other characters can you say that about? So, that being said, who's to say what's right and wrong, especially now that each one of these interpretations has proven themselves worthy in their own right and each one has total respect for the concepts that Conan Doyle thought up waiting for patients to come into his office.
I agree Nick. I don't hear the "Elementary" nay-sayers harping ont he Downey lack of hygiene and his almost death like grip on his relationship with Watson etc... I like your every mood idea. My son does not like Miller for his presesnting "weaknesses." I have suggested that this is the period that Watson was said to have "cured" him of addiction, much like 7 percent Solution. As for Liu, I was prepared to hate her and was somewhat annoyed by her in the first episode. However, after a few scnes with Miller who was raised in an acting family and in the BBC, she is rising to his heights! Well done.
Latest ELEMENTARY episodes refers to THE CROOKED MAN and THE BLUE CARBUNCLE. Nicely done !!!
Not only that, they give a nod to "Sherlock"--"I believe in Sherlock Holmes" and "Game of Shadows" with Liu facing a naked Hannah.
LOL !!! You're right,James, of course. For a second there, I actually thought Hannah might be Mycroft !!!!
Well, well, there hasn't been a post here in ages, not that I'm surprised....
Now, was anybody else a little disappointed in the season finale as I was ?
Really, Irene Adler is Moriarty ? I can't say I buy that, but I would welcome any other opinion on the subject. I was especially disappointed because I saw the great Arnold Vosloo's name in the opening credits. Now he would be a great Moriarty. Instead he was just a pawn in female Moriarty's "devious" plan. Or was he ? ( Wishful thinking, gang). This really left me flat because, for the most part, this series was not bad. But, to me, they kind of blew it with the finale. Maybe they can redeem themselves next season.....
But, a re-watching of all six SHERLOCK episodes cured that. In fact, I even caught a few more things this time around and got ELEMENTARY's weak finale out of my mind and also proved, to me, that Andrew Scott's Moriarty (which I had NO problem with) was far superior.
I actually enjoyed the season finale. I thought making Adler and Moriarty one and the same was brilliant. Only the second time for the cinematic Moriarty being a woman and this one is not a joke. While Andrew Scott is a wonderful actor and does everything he can with the role, I just don''t find his ADHD Joker-esque Moriarty a credible "organizer of half that is evil and of nearly all that is undetected in this great city." I grant you that he is a match for Cumberbatch's Asperger-like high-functioning sociopath. But I can see henchmen wanting to work for Natalie Dormer's cool and cunning genius. I can't see a criminal interviewing for a position in nutjob Scott's empire and going, "Yup, this is the guy I want to hitch my wagon to! The ill-gotten booty will be rolling in!" In mob terms, would you rather work for Vito Corleone or Joey Bananas?
The reveal was one that the showrunners had figured from the beginning. One can go back over the season and see the clues. I know there are a lot of people out there having problems with "Morirene", but Elementary and Sherlock and the Downey films are not Granada and are not trying to be faithful to the letter of the Canon.
Ok, duly noted on your points.....
However, odds are anyone actually doing the "wet work" isn't interviewed by Moriarty himself. That would be Moran's job so I doubt that would make any difference. The "contract" workers, or "henchmen", are taking orders from Moran and ,as true to Moriarty, never even see him or, more importantly, not even know about, except in whispers. That's the Moriarty I know. And going on that premise, would any henchmen go to work for Vinnie Jones' Moran? We never met SHERLOCK's Moran. Maybe season three ? And that's the beauty of Scott's Moriarty. A criminal genius seething and achieving such malevolence that he actually becomes "bored" and seeks eccentric outlets. Plus, it adds to his unpredictability which is refreshing in this information age and , to me, much more menacing.
Now maybe Miller's Holmes was fooled by Dormer's female charms (which I find kind of ridiculous given the true nature of Holmes in general especially since in this version we are expected to believe Holmes has sex merely for the sex' sake and nothing else. Remember the prostitute in the pilot and, of course, the twins), but Dormer's Moriarty fooled by Holmes' fake relapse?!? That's supposed to be "cool and cunning" ? I don't think so. So, what was she ? Blinded by her "love" for Holmes not to see such an obvious trap AND showing up at the hospital? Or are you going to suggest she did it on purpose so she can see or challenge Homes again? Not very "Vito Corleone", in my book. In fact, anti-climatic and a little stupid for a mastermind.
I'm sure there are clues here and there throughout the season. It could very well be the idea from the beginning. But that doesn't necessarily make it a GOOD idea whether you're following the Canon or not. SHERLOCK and GAME OF SHADOWS have a much better understanding of Moriarty ( as well as the character of Irene Adler) then Robert Doherty and Natalie Dormer combined.
Well, we have to agree to disagree. If you are going to find fault with the hospital scene, you'll have to find fault with "The Dying Detective". "Not very "Vito Corleone", in my book. In fact, anti-climatic and a little stupid for a mastermind." I think a mastermind distracted by a phone call is a little stupid and anti-climatic as a resolution for a two-parter, But hey, that my opinion. I'll continue to enjoy Elementary and Sherlock.
OK, we disagree. But the comparison of "The Dying Detective" does not hold water. Holmes wasn't sleeping with Culverton Smith and did not have a sexual and intimate relationship with him. Quite a difference. And Smith never was a Moriarty. My point is Dormer's Moriarty should have known better given how she set Holmes up and strung him along. I mean, really. I also strongly disagree with combining two of the most interesting adversaries of Holmes into one and then have Holmes fall in love with her. That's not " brilliant", that's cheap and lazy writing.
You really think Scott's Moriarty was "distracted' by a phone call? I think that Scott's Moriarty realized at the last possible moment that there was a better way to dispose of Holmes and he used that phone call as an offsetting maneuver as evidenced by the next two episodes and the way Moriarty played Mycroft. Yes, he took a considerable chance with Holmes possibly shooting the explosives, but, at this point,it was gamble he was willing to take. Scott was a much better Moriarty all around.
I will also continue to watch both. I had very high hopes for ELEMENTARY and still do. But they ended the first season very weak with a rather contrived "americaized" plot which, in my opinion, takes away from the character of both Holmes and Moriarty and the initial concept of an otherwise excellent series by bordering on bad soap opera.
And hey, thanks for your opinion.
Yes, I do think that Scott was distracted. According to the internal chronology of the show Scott got the call in May or June and "A Scandal of Belgravia" does not come to a head until after Christmas. A "so changeable" criminal doesn't strike me as a formidable opponent and as an organized head of a criminal organization, but I wouldn't mind seeing him return to "Sherlock". I think that Moffat and Gatiss can make that work. By the way, I think that each show has its own canon not beholden to Doyle's Canon. That's true of "Sherlock", "Elementary", the Granada series, The Rathbone/Bruce films and the Downey movies. Each needs to be judged by what they posit as well as the Canon. Each, I feel, does well by Doyle and by how they reinterpret it. We are in a new "golden age" for Sherlock Holmes, and I am enjoying the ride. Good to talk to you again. You should check out the Google+ site. Your voice would be most welcome.
"Yes, I do think that Scott was distracted."
Because why ? What did he do to make you feel that ? His look ? His demeanor? What ? It's essential to his success as a criminal mastermind to constantly keep your adversaries guessing. The ringtone alone should have told you that.
"According to the internal chronology of the show Scott got the call in May or June and "A Scandal of Belgravia" does not come to a head until after Christmas. "
And that's significant because ...?
"A "so changeable" criminal doesn't strike me as a formidable opponent and as an organized head of a criminal organization,"
And yet, he plans things six months in advance. Oh, stop it. That's just a ruse to keep Holmes off balance. Look what Dormer does in ELEMENTARY. She sleeps with him.
"but I wouldn't mind seeing him return to "Sherlock".
That remains to be seen...
"I think that Moffat and Gatiss can make that work. "
They have made everything work, in my opinion.
"By the way, I think that each show has its own canon not beholden to Doyle's Canon. That's true of "Sherlock", "Elementary", the Granada series, The Rathbone/Bruce films and the Downey movies. Each needs to be judged by what they posit as well as the Canon. Each, I feel, does well by Doyle and by how they reinterpret it. We are in a new "golden age" for Sherlock Holmes, and I am enjoying the ride."
Can't argue with that..
"Good to talk to you again."
And to you...
"You should check out the Google+ site. Your voice would be most welcome."
OK, I will. Thank you....