![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Elementary 1x01-1x07
Hey, I finally watched some TV! FWIW, the only Sherlock Holmes I have ever consumed is the first RDJ movie and The Great Mouse Detective. I.e. every thing I know about Sherlock Holmes I learned through fannish osmosis, and I'm not particularly invested in any reading or version of Holmes and Watson.
The show is a nice balance between the killer-of-the-week procedural mysteries and the ongoing mysteries of Holmes' and Watson's pasts. I am generally not one for mysteries, so the main draw of the show for me is the developing relationship between Holmes and Watson and how it is changing both of them. I rather like how much the show expects you to want to slap Holmes as much as admire him for his deductions, and I'm particularly fond of Lucy Liu's many facial expressions of "I am not impressed."
I'm not sure why Holmes and Watson works better for me than Tony Stark and Pepper Potts. Probably something about Watson not being under Holmes' pay, and the fact that she is clearly the costar of the show, even if she is a bit sidelined a la Scully with Mulder. And hey, Scully primed me very early to like emotionally contained women who raise their eyebrows at their male partners who are frequently behaving in odd ways. As previously mentioned, I want to smack Holmes most of the time, particularly in the episode in which he goes on about how Watson should simply sit there, a receptacle to his insight and wisdom. But so far, most of the times Holmes is a jerk, he is obviously being a jerk and sometimes even gets taken down a peg or two.
The mysteries themselves are good enough on a case-by-case basis, though I can clearly tell when twists (and usually a general direction of the twist) in the case are going to pop up by timing and by how well things are going. There have thankfully been not too many scenes of women being killed and tortured, which is my very low standard for anything involving crime and TV.
The show has also managed to pass the Bechdel test several times, and even between two women of color (!!), but I do wish it were a far more regular thing. I am also wondering how Detective Bell is going to do over the course of the show.
And on a completely random note, I love the opening sequence. (Mouse! Hello! You are almost like a rat!)
In conclusion: I heart Watson.
The show is a nice balance between the killer-of-the-week procedural mysteries and the ongoing mysteries of Holmes' and Watson's pasts. I am generally not one for mysteries, so the main draw of the show for me is the developing relationship between Holmes and Watson and how it is changing both of them. I rather like how much the show expects you to want to slap Holmes as much as admire him for his deductions, and I'm particularly fond of Lucy Liu's many facial expressions of "I am not impressed."
I'm not sure why Holmes and Watson works better for me than Tony Stark and Pepper Potts. Probably something about Watson not being under Holmes' pay, and the fact that she is clearly the costar of the show, even if she is a bit sidelined a la Scully with Mulder. And hey, Scully primed me very early to like emotionally contained women who raise their eyebrows at their male partners who are frequently behaving in odd ways. As previously mentioned, I want to smack Holmes most of the time, particularly in the episode in which he goes on about how Watson should simply sit there, a receptacle to his insight and wisdom. But so far, most of the times Holmes is a jerk, he is obviously being a jerk and sometimes even gets taken down a peg or two.
The mysteries themselves are good enough on a case-by-case basis, though I can clearly tell when twists (and usually a general direction of the twist) in the case are going to pop up by timing and by how well things are going. There have thankfully been not too many scenes of women being killed and tortured, which is my very low standard for anything involving crime and TV.
The show has also managed to pass the Bechdel test several times, and even between two women of color (!!), but I do wish it were a far more regular thing. I am also wondering how Detective Bell is going to do over the course of the show.
And on a completely random note, I love the opening sequence. (Mouse! Hello! You are almost like a rat!)
In conclusion: I heart Watson.
no subject
I read "A Study in Scarlet" after watching, but there's not much Holmes-worship there yet? I guess? Do they get very close later on? (And is it worth reading more?)
I really like that JLM's Holmes is very clearly not right all the time, even if he is brilliant, and I love that his brilliance doesn't excuse stuff, and that things really get to him even when he pretends he is all rational all the time.
My dear Watson, I owe you a thousand apologies!
Oh, god, "A Study in Scarlet" is horrid, ugh. (The Utah section ARGH ARGH.) And it's not much fun on the shipping front, either. Just all around: ugh.
The Sign of Four, the second novel, on the other hand, is as shippy as all hell: it covers the case during which Watson meets his fiancee, and all the Holmes/Watson pining is hard to overlook. However, warning for no-holds-barred Victorian orientalism: there was a chapter near the end that I just flat-out skipped, because I really did not need to hear the backstory of the Indian treasure.
Holmes-worship: The Three Garridebs and The Devil's Root both have "it was worth almost dying to know that you care for me" moments. The Dying Detective is perhaps the most astonishing example in canon of Watson being COMPLETELY UNABLE TO DRAW A LINE AT ALL, MY GOD. The three story sequence, The Final Problem, The Empty House, and The Norwood Builder are also rather marked in their "I have no existence other than to follow you" on Watson's part. (Some may argue that the first two stories of that sequence qualify as extenuating circumstances, but even within those first two, there are parts that make me go "Really, Watson? Really?" And then when I reach that early paragraph of Norwood Builder -- you'll know it when you see it -- my eyebrow goes straight to my hairline: extenuating circumstances, my foot.)
In general, I tend to read the stories for the Holmes/Watson shippiness and wtferies, and find them very satisfying on that front. The plotty stuff, on the other hand, meh, I mostly skim that. ;-)
Re: My dear Watson, I owe you a thousand apologies!
And I like getting a look at Holmes and Watson first meeting, but I was unimpressed by Holmes' deducting. More infodumpy geekery! I was also amused to find Holmes' "brain as space-limited attic" metaphor in the story and how Elementary grabbed it. (And was happy Watson immediately told him that most psych studies say that's not the case.)
Is there stuff to read for Irene Adler or Mycroft stuff? Or... Mycroft is the big villain? Something? HI! I KNOW NOTHING ABOUT THIS!
Re: My dear Watson, I owe you a thousand apologies!
To me Holmes can be abrasive, but that is not assholery. Reading the stories or watching the Jeremy Brett Sherlock Holmes (on Netflix Instant!) you can see the deep affection between them.
The thing is, in the ACD canon (which some ppl call conan. HAHAHA) Irene Adler isn't important. She appears in one story in which she pwns Sherlock hard core. She doesn't "get her comeuppance" she just flat out beats him. It's beautiful.
Mycroft is Sherlock Holmes brother. He appears in a handful of stories. Moriarity is not the archenemy of Sherlock Holmes that most adaptions would have you think. It's just that he appears more than once and .
Re: My dear Watson, I owe you a thousand apologies!
Re: My dear Watson, I owe you a thousand apologies!
Irene Adler: A Scandal in Bohemia.
Mycroft: appears twice directly -- The Greek Interpreter and The Bruce-Partington Plans -- and indirectly in The Final Problem and The Empty House. In canon, Sherlock and Mycroft have a cordial, if not particularly close, relationship, and Sherlock respects Mycroft as being even smarter than Sherlock is. (BTW, you'd be tickled by the Diogenes club in The Greek Interpreter.)
Most adaptations treat Moriarty as Sherlock Holmes's archnemesis, which is... kinda true, and kinda not. Moriarty is mentioned exactly twice: The Final Problem and The Empty House. (See how many times I've pointed at those two stories now? Go read them. In that order. As much as you could say that there's a Sherlock Holmes long-arc, it goes: Study in Scarlet, Sign of the Four, The Final Problem, the Empty House.) After you read those stories, you probably won't need me to explain what I mean when I say "kinda true, and kinda not." The way most adaptations treat Moriarty is very fannish.
...in short, BBC Sherlock and Elementary are far more like fanworks than straight-up adaptations, in that they spend a lot of time commenting on canon, snarking about canon, and making "did you catch that?" references to canon. Elementary seems less interested in the plots of the ACD stories, and mostly seems to be making up its own casefics, building alternative histories and plotlines for the characters. BBC Sherlock, OTOH, is very invested in the ACD plots, but extends and twists and reinvents them.