CBS's "Elementary"

[Carol the Dabbler]

The reader comments on that article are interesting, too -- Elementary vs Sherlock.

 

I suspect it's largely a personality thing, with Elementary being more in tune with some people's psyche, and Sherlock more in tune with others'.

 

[Shadow Dweller]

.... I didn't see a commentary part/link (on mobile)

[TheMightyThor]

Is Elementary a sequel to Sherlock? The other way around? Or does it have nothing to do with Sherlock? I'm confused.

For instance..

 

*SPOILER ALERT*

 

 

In Elementary: 

Sherlock is a recovering heroin addict

Watson is his sober companion but then becomes his assistant

Ms. Hudson is younger than Sherlock

Irene is his lover who 'died' but then turned out to be Moriarty

Moriarty is Irene 

His brother is kind of dumb at first (not smart as sherlock), and he turns out to be in MI6

Lestrade didn't change much as far as I know

 

 

I mean it doesn't make any sense!

[Carol the Dabbler]

Is Elementary a sequel to Sherlock? The other way around? Or does it have nothing to do with Sherlock? I'm confused.

For instance..

 

*SPOILER ALERT*

 

In Elementary: 

Sherlock is a recovering heroin addict

Watson is his sober companion but then becomes his assistant

Ms. Hudson is younger than Sherlock

Irene is his lover who 'died' but then turned out to be Moriarty

Moriarty is Irene 

His brother is kind of dumb at first (not smart as sherlock), and he turns out to be in MI6

Lestrade didn't change much as far as I know

 

I mean it doesn't make any sense!

 

Greetings, O Mighty Thor!  Welcome to Sherlock Forum! 

 

The best answer I can give to your question is, neither is a sequel to the other; they are two separate programs with a common background.  In fact, they have two common backgrounds:  Both series are based on Conan Doyle's stories, obviously.  But also, according to Steven Moffat, after Sherlock became a big hit in the UK, CBS had talks with Hartswood about the possibility of jointly developing an American version of Sherlock.  Hartswood eventually decided against the idea, so CBS developed something on their own, which turned out to be Elementary, debuting in the fall of 2012, after Sherlock's Series 2 had aired in the spring.

 

CBS is surely aware that any hint of copyright infringement would meet with harsh reprisal by the BBC.  This presumably accounts for at least some of the differences that you mention, which give the newer program quite a different look and feel.  During the first two seasons of Elementary, I spotted only one apparently "borrowed" item:

 

Three times in this episode, someone (one character twice and another once) said "I believe in Sherlock Holmes." Can anyone tell me, was that sentence (or anything similar) ever used in the ACD stories or in a pre-Sherlock movie or tv show? If so, then I guess the Elementary people have a plausible excuse for using it. If not -- huh?

 

Regardless of the answer, they must surely have been aware that it's a common saying among Sherlock fans. Even if it started as a personal in-joke by the writer, or because someone saw it on a T-shirt and thought it was cute -- even then, someone would surely have spotted it as a specifically Sherlock fan thing by the time it was filmed.

 

[Boton]

 

Is Elementary a sequel to Sherlock? The other way around? Or does it have nothing to do with Sherlock? I'm confused.

For instance..

 

*SPOILER ALERT*

 

In Elementary: 

Sherlock is a recovering heroin addict

Watson is his sober companion but then becomes his assistant

Ms. Hudson is younger than Sherlock

Irene is his lover who 'died' but then turned out to be Moriarty

Moriarty is Irene 

His brother is kind of dumb at first (not smart as sherlock), and he turns out to be in MI6

Lestrade didn't change much as far as I know

 

I mean it doesn't make any sense!

 

Greetings, O Mighty Thor!  Welcome to Sherlock Forum! 

 

The best answer I can give to your question is, neither is a sequel to the other; they are two separate programs with a common background. 

 

 

Hi, O Mighty Thor!  Welcome to our mad house!

 

Carol has given the best answer as to the true relationship between the two shows (i.e., there is officially none, other than the obvious ACD canon).  If it helps, though, here's how I view this and pretty much all Holmes/Watson incarnations:

 

I assume that the Holmes/Watson relationship is an archetype: it's so strong that it exists in every time period and every set of human conditions.  What we do, then, is take a particular set of human conditions and see how the relationship would play out there.

 

In Elementary, what if Sherlock Holmes existed in the 21st century; what would that mean for his drug habit?  Surely, he would have less latitude to self-medicate his problems, so what might have been a bohemian Victorian habit is viewed as a dangerous addition he has to battle here.

 

And what if Watson were a woman?  Well, no problem in the 21st century, because women and men can function equally in most if not all endeavors that are not related to their physical sex, but what would the relationship look like?  

 

And how would Irene Adler "beat" Holmes?  She can't do it by being a clever opera singer who, in Moffat's (?) words, "gets married and moves house."  No, she'd have to be cunning and potentially evil.  How does that play out.

 

I like Elementary.  It's not Sherlock.  I remind myself of that every time I hear that opening credit music, and then I just sit back and enjoy it as what it is and don't try to make it anything else.

[Carol the Dabbler]

I liked Elementary very much for the first couple of seasons, and was especially fond of their intricate clockwork plots.  But then they stopped doing those and went all story arc on me, with character development.  I don't think they do that sort of thing nearly as well as Sherlock does, and the last few episodes I saw seemed to be attempting to out-outrageous "Last Vow."  At that point, I didn't much care what happened next, so I stopped watching the show.

 

[Boton]

I'm honestly not crazy about the whole Holmes-in-AA/NA subplot, even though its pretty essential to the whole story as they've built it.  But I have to say, the one episode last season in which he stood up and used the canon "my mind rebels at stagnation" speech was really brilliantly done, both from a scripting and acting standpoint.  I absolutely adore Miller's delivery of some of the canon speeches, and I think he's a phenomenal actor.

 

I actually think the script-writers have choked on their own set-up twist with Watson being a woman.  I think they made everything far too complicated, and they've lost some of the Holmes/Watson dynamic, especially in the first season when Watson was his sober companion.  I think they should have just ditched that and had Watson looking for a roommate (because NYC is expensive, darn it) and then let the relationship just play out.  It would have been nice to see Watson with a successful surgery career and then have her get gradually more and more interested in Holmes's work.

[Carol the Dabbler]

That does sound more interesting, as well as more canonish.

 

It also bugs me that they're making her his full partner.  What's the point of having a Sherlock Holmes around if Watson could manage just fine alone?

 

[Boton]

That does sound more interesting, as well as more canonish.

 

It also bugs me that they're making her his full partner.  What's the point of having a Sherlock Holmes around if Watson could manage just fine alone?

 

Exactly.  The point is that Watson is Holmes's conductor of light.  That's essential to the relationship, and it's something that they've been missing all along.  

[Arcadia]

Now I feel like I ought to watch this thing just to see what you two are talking about. I tried several times, but it never engaged me. I'm starting to think I need to find something else to obsess over, though! I sort of need to wash Sherlock out of my system, I think, so I can approach the Special relatively fresh. Maybe I'll dig out some Buffy DVD's.....

[Boton]

Now I feel like I ought to watch this thing just to see what you two are talking about. I tried several times, but it never engaged me. I'm starting to think I need to find something else to obsess over, though! I sort of need to wash Sherlock out of my system, I think, so I can approach the Special relatively fresh. Maybe I'll dig out some Buffy DVD's.....

 

If you do, watch the Pilot (ep. 1), and then skip to the end of season one and watch the initial Irene Adler arc (ep. 22-24: Risk Management, The Woman, and Heroine).  There's some other good stuff in there along the way, but my opinion is that these are the most Holmesian of the episodes within the framework they've set up.  And Jonny Lee Miller and Natalie Dormer are absolute magic on screen together.  

 

The Irene Adler arc is worth it just for seeing JLM carry off a line that went something like:

 

"To me, she was always The Woman.  She eclipsed and predominated the whole of her gender....And the sex, Watson!  The things I learned!"

[Carol the Dabbler]

Alex and I have started watching Monk (on DVD).  We both think that Moftiss have very little reason to worry that Elementary was copied off of Sherlock -- it bears far more resemblance to Monk.

 

Adrian Monk is a recovering obsessive-compulsive.  Elementary's Sherlock Holmes is a recovering alcoholic.

 

Each of them has a female "handler."

 

Each of them examines a crime scene and reels off a list of seemingly irrelevant observations that turn out to be crucial to solving the case.

 

Each of them has an uncanny sense of smell.  Holmes can tell from sniffing the upholstery what perfume was being worn by the last person to sit in that chair.  Monk can tell by sniffing the drapes what brand of cigarettes was being smoked in the room.

 

I realize that's only a few points of comparison, but we've watched only two episodes of Monk so far.  And anyhow, that's far more points of comparison than I can offhand think of between Elementary and Sherlock (other than what they've both borrowed from Conan Doyle's stories).  Monk ran from 2002 to 2009, and Elementary started in 2012.

 

[Boton]

I used to love Monk.  I ought to rewatch it.

 

I'm starting to get into this new season of Elementary, now that we're a couple of episodes in.  I didn't like the idea of introducing Sherlock's father, but I'm really warming to the idea that the character that was once assumed to be a "country squire" with a hereditary title is now a privileged, rich jerk who uses his money to manipulate people.  That criticism of the ultra-wealthy seems to be a subtext in Elementary, and they usually handle it well. 

[Goodnight-Vienna]

I personally really like this show. My favourite character is Rhys Ifans' Mycroft! I also love Sean Pertwee's Lestrade. 

[Carol the Dabbler]

I personally really like this show. My favourite character is Rhys Ifans' Mycroft! I also love Sean Pertwee's Lestrade. 

 

Hello, Goodnight-Vienna -- welcome to Sherlock Forum and congratulations on your first post!  (I love your screen name, by the way.)

 

Maybe I should give Elementary another try.  I liked the first couple of seasons just fine, then got turned off by what I considered a too-clever season finale.  Even though their Mycroft is even less like the canon character than the one in Sherlock, I do find him a thoroughly engaging fellow, and I'm inanely pleased that their Lestrade is played by the son of the third Doctor's actor.

[Goodnight-Vienna]

Do give it another try!

 

I hated it at first, but after I got over the fact that it was niether BBC's Sherlock nor the classic Conan Doyle, I was able to enjoy it more. I love that Ifans' Mycroft is so well suited to Miller's Sherlock. 

 

[sittything]

I don't watch this, but I just saw on Tumblr that their Sherlock is getting a love interest?!

 

http://www.ew.com/article/2015/12/31/elementary-betty-gilpin-sherlock-love-interest

[Boton]

 

I hated it at first, but after I got over the fact that it was niether BBC's Sherlock nor the classic Conan Doyle, I was able to enjoy it more. 

 

Welcome aboard, GV!

 

I agree with you, that you have to go into Elementary with a certain mindset.  If you were to draw a bullseye of how close the various Holmes portrayals are to the ACD original, probably most people would put Jeremy Brett in the center and Elementary out on the edge.  But the thing is, the more I watch other portrayals of Holmes, the more I realize that most of them stray pretty far from canon.  This one is a perfectly plausible guess of what Holmes would be like if he were an American and a former drug addict (not user) with a female partner, and it's probably no further astray than is House.

 

In some ways, I think that the substitution of the NYPD for Scotland Yard drags this portrayal further afield as well.  NYPD-type shows tend to be grittier and more hard-nosed, and there's something about having the no-nonsense Gregson in place of the various kinds of Lestrade (ranging from avuncular to bumbling) that lends the show a more realistic air.

[Bluebell]

I really like that I can watch those both Sherlock-Versions totally unrelated to each other. I never compare the Elementary-Sherlock with the BBC-one. And that there is so little actually that can be compared, so I would not start thinking about it.

I also like the idea of Watson being a woman, I like Lucy Liu a lot, so in my opinion she was a good choice.

 

I have the suspicion though that I would confuse things if the shows would run both on the same channel and if the BBC Sherlock would be around the same time as 'american' Sherlock :lol: ...the difference is for me though - despite there is so few of it and it takes so long to get new episodes (or maybe because, as I am a rather slow person myself) it's easier to jump in the story of the BBC Sherlock, to kinda get lost in it and its universe. The Elementary thing is rather more something I watch 'from the outside', if you know what I mean.

 

 

 

[Carol the Dabbler]

... the more I watch other portrayals of Holmes, the more I realize that most of them stray pretty far from canon.  This one is a perfectly plausible guess of what Holmes would be like if he were an American and a former drug addict (not user) with a female partner, and it's probably no further astray than is House.

 

In some ways, I think that the substitution of the NYPD for Scotland Yard drags this portrayal further afield as well.  NYPD-type shows tend to be grittier and more hard-nosed, and there's something about having the no-nonsense Gregson in place of the various kinds of Lestrade (ranging from avuncular to bumbling) that lends the show a more realistic air.

 

Agreed -- the "cop show" angle of Elementary is its most clearly American aspect, but I think it's well done and well integrated into the overall story (and I find Gregson pretty lovable despite his gruffness).

 

Just to avoid confusing anyone who hasn't seen the show, I'd like to point out that Elementary's Sherlock Holmes is originally British -- but he now lives in New York City.

 

... it's easier to jump in the story of the BBC Sherlock, to kinda get lost in it and its universe. The Elementary thing is rather more something I watch 'from the outside', if you know what I mean.

 

Yup, I understand.  I think it's because with Elementary, the plots are the important thing, whereas in Sherlock, the plots are more of something to hang the character development on.  Of course, I haven't even watched Elementary for a year or two, so I'm basing that on its first two seasons.  From what I've heard, the subsequent seasons are more character oriented, though I have no idea whether that's become more important than the clockwork plots that I admired.

[Nick_Hopkins]

It's really interesting to read some of the posts in this thread and see how opinions have developed and changed over time. Like many other people, my first thoughts when this series was originally mentioned were not positive but the makers soon changed my mind. It's a good time for American drama and also a good time to be a Sherlockian. Weird now to think that until recently there had not been a successful Sherlock adaptation for decades...

[Carol the Dabbler]

Well over a decade, anyhow -- though it sure seemed even longer.

 

Let's see:

 

Rathbone & Bruce: 1939-1947

Brett & Burke/Hardwicke: 1984-1994

Downey & Law: 2009-

Cumberbatch & Freeman: 2010-

Miller & Liu: 2012-

 

Plus of course a number of minor adaptations and also a number of foreign-language versions.

 

[Boton]

 

 

 

Yup, I understand.  I think it's because with Elementary, the plots are the important thing, whereas in Sherlock, the plots are more of something to hang the character development on.  Of course, I haven't even watched Elementary for a year or two, so I'm basing that on its first two seasons.  From what I've heard, the subsequent seasons are more character oriented, though I have no idea whether that's become more important than the clockwork plots that I admired.

 

 

I think your clockwork plots are still there, but they are adding in a more "American style" of character development, if that makes sense.  I feel like, in the British shows I watch, the character development is central because it works its way out in a very intricate fashion over the run of a series (season, for the Americans) or an entire show (series).  In that way, it seems that British character development feels more organic, and the plots can be somewhat secondary to understanding how the characters got where they are.  American dramas seem to be the reverse for me, with sometimes very tight plots, but characterization that can rely on a single exposition supposedly explaining the actions of the character during that episode and then perhaps disappearing later (unless that exposition is supposed to be a big theme).  I think that general difference is the difference for me between Sherlock and Elementary.

 

So this week they're supposed to be doing some riff on Hound of the Baskervilles.  I don't know if I'm excited to see it or terrified that its going to be a mess.  

[Nick_Hopkins]

 

 

 

 

Yup, I understand.  I think it's because with Elementary, the plots are the important thing, whereas in Sherlock, the plots are more of something to hang the character development on.  Of course, I haven't even watched Elementary for a year or two, so I'm basing that on its first two seasons.  From what I've heard, the subsequent seasons are more character oriented, though I have no idea whether that's become more important than the clockwork plots that I admired.

 

 

I think your clockwork plots are still there, but they are adding in a more "American style" of character development, if that makes sense.  I feel like, in the British shows I watch, the character development is central because it works its way out in a very intricate fashion over the run of a series (season, for the Americans) or an entire show (series).  In that way, it seems that British character development feels more organic, and the plots can be somewhat secondary to understanding how the characters got where they are.  American dramas seem to be the reverse for me, with sometimes very tight plots, but characterization that can rely on a single exposition supposedly explaining the actions of the character during that episode and then perhaps disappearing later (unless that exposition is supposed to be a big theme).  I think that general difference is the difference for me between Sherlock and Elementary.

 

So this week they're supposed to be doing some riff on Hound of the Baskervilles.  I don't know if I'm excited to see it or terrified that its going to be a mess.  

 

 

It's very interesting to read that explanation of things. I guess because American shows have so many more episodes and very often have larger writing teams.

 

 

[Carol the Dabbler]

 

 

 

American dramas seem to be the reverse for me, with sometimes very tight plots, but characterization that can rely on a single exposition supposedly explaining the actions of the character during that episode and then perhaps disappearing later (unless that exposition is supposed to be a big theme)

 

It's very interesting to read that explanation of things. I guess because American shows have so many more episodes and very often have larger writing teams.

 

I think you're right about that.  It'd be very difficult for a small writing staff to do more than a few (good) episodes per year, therefore American shows tend to be written by large staffs and/or freelancers.  So one writer may think it'd be funny if Helen turns out to be a kleptomaniac -- but then it's never mentioned again.  Apparently some soap operas (admittedly, not the highest artform) have forgotten entire pregnancies.