Sherlock Holmes: This Time in New York

[Lisin]

I quite like this incarnation of Sherlock, I realize it's not quite as perfect and amazing as Sherlock on BBC but there's plenty to go around when it comes to this character in my opinion.

[mad_typist]

Agreed. I absolutely adore what JLM is doing with this character. He plays Holmes as a deeply damaged man, and he has a fragility that you don't normally see in other incarnations. His arc with Irene Adler last season was simply amazing. I was actually concerned for Holmes.

I really enjoy the weird little details that JLM puts in - from the collars buttoned all the way up, to the way he twitches like he's got bugs crawling under his skin. He also has a surprising range of faces that express disdain. Great stuff.

[frenchtoast]

Because I still love the original stories the best, my favorite Holmes is still Jeremy Brett. I find that JLM has the same warmth, kindness and humor that Brett brought. The one difference is I always felt that Brett and canon!Holmes were supremely confident, even when admitting they were wrong. I find JLM's Holmes confident, but they also allow him to explore a little with uncertainty, which I think has to do with his addiction storyline. For the most part, he strides in, knowing that hurting people's feelings is worth the price. But I appreciate that JLM gives him a little more nuance. After Moriarty and Bell being shot, he has a better understanding of himself, and he's navigating what it means to be a person with faults. And luckily, he's got Joan Watson with him. They're both figuring it out and I'm quite enjoying the journey. 

I also adore the relationship between Joan and Sherlock. I can completely understand why they are friends--I see the wordless and worded connection they have. And I devoutly hope it will remain a friendship because it is one of the most touching and caring friendships that I've seen.

I know some people are tired of the addict storyline, but I find that aligns with canon. Canon!Watson mentions that he weaned Holmes off and was usually on the lookout for times when Holmes might succumb. I think both Joan and canon!Watson are aware of his tendencies and have a good understanding of how to approach him about it. But I find being an addict humanizes Sherlock. In canon, he was at minimum polite, but he was usually kind and empathetic to his clients/the victims. He had sense of justice and fair play that didn't necessarily line up with the law, but was more spirit rather than letter of the law. I appreciate that in JLM's Holmes we see the desire to use his intellect to make the world a little more just and fair. We've really seen it this season, and I really like seeing the idea explored that both Joan and Sherlock want to help people, want to ensure justice.

[mad_typist]

Oh the addiction storyline is very canon. I recall reading one of the later stories where Watson observes that Holmes has been doping up too much, and seems lethargic and uninterested in doing things.

[mindbird]

Even at TwoP I never had anything to say on the Elementary board, and I'm not sure how this place works but I just came in because of a deep need to mention:

---the unbridled joie de vivre that is Watson

---the way Watson's eyes frisk Holmes and all visitors

---yes, those jumpy little mannerisms of the Holmes character

---the way Holmes modulates his voice so that you can tell from the next room that it's his weekly "insight into my addiction and emotion" soliloquy to Watson

---in fact, the way Holmes modulates his voice so you can tell from the next room what he's doing and what part of the episode it is. 

---the clever ways the writers manage to intermingle the mystery problem and the addiction problem all the time

Oh how much I hate them all. 

I watched E. the first season and have ignored it since then. A person must sometimes make concessions to the preferences of others, so I am a captive audience and nothing else is on anyway.  I thought I had been ignoring it successfully, but I was out late and came in during the episode tonight and nearly hissed when I saw what was on.

No incarnation of Homes has ever been exactly likeable, and no exception here.  This Watson is the tense dead-eyed ghost of a doctor who died with the patient in surgery and whose sole reason for lingering is to guard Holmes. I must find activities so that I never spend another moment with either of them.

I know that great people will tell me great reasons to believe this is a great show. I even know some. I can't argue. But I can't see this show objectively.  I just hate it. Thank you.

 

[MacGuffin]

 

I know that great people will tell me great reasons to believe this is a great show. I even know some. I can't argue. But I can't see this show objectively.  I just hate it. Thank you.

I don't agree with you but I like your style.

[frenchtoast]

Cress said (with some snipping on my part):

 

That's how I see those other detectives at the NYPD; they're resentful and distrustful of Sherlock. Joan and Sherlock are consultants; they are being invited into someone else's territory to work, and instead of being nice about it, Sherlock makes it more difficult than it has to be. The NYPD detectives are supposed to be so professional, but Sherlock can get away with being unprofessional just because he's a genius? Joan brought this up and told him to be more polite. Sherlock didn't listen and in fact spouted an arrogant speech about how he's not a nice person and she shouldn't try to change him.

Then when Bell gets shot, and Sherlock ought to see now that his rudeness has consequences, the writing makes him vascillate between guilt and making excuses for himself. As for James Dillon:
The fact is that Sherlock made himself a target, as well as anyone else unlucky to be near him. If Dillon had known Sherlock's address, he could have gone to the brownstone and shot Joan instead, or possibly Ms Hudson. Are we to absolve Sherlock of all blame just because the person who get shot is up to random happenstance? It doesn't matter who got shot; it matters that someone was shot because of him. He did not need to rile Dillon that way by speaking loud enough to be overheard at Dillon's workplace. (I remember more than one episode where Sherlock has deduced that a person was a drug addict at their workplace, but Sherlock had the courtesy and discretion to quietly reveal his knowledge and to swear that he would tell no one else.) Why doesn't Dillon get the same discretion and careful handling? Sherlock could have talked to the man quietly to make his threats (and in fact Sherlock says to Bell, "I should have investigated the man before I got to the office. I was armed man, he doesn't say "I'm sorry." He says instead "That's unfortunate", like it's just bad luck that he couldn't have predicted. Not that he sabotaged the man on purpose.

I believe that Joan said to Sherlock that the reason he should not be rude to the NYPD detectives is because it would make solving cases together easier instead of impeding work. Sherlock claimed that sometimes his rudeness caused problems, but most of the time it wasn't impeding work, so he didn't care about being nice to people. But when he got someone shot, when Bell didn't want to forgive him or work with him, and when the judge was considering not letting Sherlock continue consulting, his behavior *was* impeding work after all. So there's no excuse for him to be an arrogant prick and not think of the consequences of his actions. I can't stand that the writers had him saying that he saw nothing wrong in his actions. He did everything wrong in that case, when only a little effort could have changed things for the better.

 

 

I agree with many of the points in the above save for the idea that the writers had him say he did nothing wrong. I got the feeling that Sherlock just couldn't admit that he had done anything wrong. Sherlock doth protest too much, as the saying goes, and I think that's what they were trying to show--that he can't say that his rude and imperious (and illegal!) approach was the wrong method. Clearly, Dillon is to blame for shooting anyone; Dillon is not innocent of wrongdoing, he pulled the trigger and made a bad situation the absolute worst. But I think the whole Bell story was to show Holmes seeing that perhaps the expression catch more flies with honey has a certain truth to it. Which is why I liked the sponsee relapse story. I like seeing Holmes trying to figure out what approach would suit best. It's more work, certainly, but it's far more interesting. Look how well it works with the internet group Everyone.

 

It's what I enjoy most about this iteration of Sherlock. He's trying and exploring and sometimes fails. And it makes him human to me. I like human Holmes. It's why I like the Brett version, and the ACD version.

[Danielg342]

1) No it wasn't professional, but it's not like the guys took the drawing over to them and shoved it in their faces. Or brought it up in a meeting. Have you never let off steam by bitching to your coworkers about a bad boss, or something you hate at your workplace? If Sherlock regularly goes around insulting people for no reason, then there's plenty of people who will hate him. Just the fact that Gregson is regularly going to an outside person can make people feel resentful, that their own abilities are ignored.

2) As for James Dillon:

Right, but James Dillon didn't know where Sherlock lived, so his natural action is to seek out the man at the NYPD, where he consults. So if not Marcus Bell, some other police officer would have been there to get injured or killed in the line of duty.

1) The issue is in the framing of the story. For Detective Craig Basken- "Detective Bell End"- since we actually saw him and the actor gave a sympathetic performance, I could conclude he's someone I'd root for, although, if memory serves me correctly, Sherlock did solve Basken's case with extreme ease.

As for the other detectives? The detectives who drew the comic weren't named, so the comic is only thing I know them for and thus I can't know for sure if they were just blowing off steam or detectives that enjoy drawing vulgar caricatures. The only things I know about Detective Owen Coventry- the detective who told the serial killer where Sherlock lived- was that he threw a temper tantrum simply because his captain asked to reopen a case he'd closed, because of new evidence; he put Sherlock's and Joan's lives at risk by telling Lukas Bundsch where they lived; and that Gregson chewed out his work ethic, saying that Coventry is a "good" detective but not a "great" detective. Then, in "The Diabolical Kind", we see Sherlock and Joan consult for an unknown detective, get frustrated with him and complain to Gregson in private that he's an idiot and the pair need a new detective to consult. Finally, when Lestrade is questioning just how good a detective he was, Joan tells him that when Bell was out of work, Sherlock had to keep changing detectives on a whim because he couldn't find one worth working with, so the fact that Sherlock worked so long with Lestrade was a sign that Sherlock respected him, since he stayed so long with Bell. Furthermore, this is all in addition to the fact that Sherlock said in "An Unnatural Arrangement" that he only knows the detectives as "Bell" or "not Bell".

Other than that, there are no other traits given to the detectives not named Basken or Bell, and putting all those traits together, I can't see something in there that tells me "root for these guys".

Sure, the traits given aren't very exhaustive character sketches and leave a lot to the imagination, opening the possibility that they're really all just detectives who are honest, diligent workers who don't like an outsider- and a hostile one to boot- trampling over them. However, I cannot say that about those detectives for sure, because the writers never gave me the counterbalance- all I know are the negative traits. I can only evaluate characters on what I know, and if all I see is negative, then that's how I'll see the character. I'm not going to give them the benefit of the doubt just because the show tells me to- I need a reason.

2) I apologize for being curt, but it's quite the leap you are making there. Dillon didn't have to go to the NYPD, he could have stalked Sherlock for weeks to find out where he lived or where he runs his errands, or looked it all up online. Furthermore, just because Dillon goes to the NYPD building doesn't mean that Sherlock will exit the building *with* someone- Dillon could still chance upon him alone. It may not be likely, but it's not impossible (especially given that Dillon seems like a smart guy, given he lied to get a job), and it still doesn't change the fact that Dillon was only mad at Sherlock, not the NYPD. Doesn't mean Sherlock shouldn't be told he needs to be more careful, because his actions put himself in danger, but I still think it's a stretch anyone else was a victim of more than happenstance.

Cress, I agree in principle that "Sherlock needs to be nicer" and "Sherlock needs to be more careful" are storylines that should be brought up, they would be incredible ones to explore, and they're probably lessons Sherlock needs to learn at some point I just think the show went about them the wrong way. Perhaps the writers believed that if they simply "told" me what was going on with the detectives I'd side with them, considering it hasn't been a secret that Sherlock is prickly. However, I don't subscribe to that- for me, a character has to earn their respect, because if all I see is a character who is just as negative as Sherlock is, then I won't root for them over Sherlock. Personally I believe the detective/Bell storyline could have been the chief narrative of S2, which would allow it to be expanded and treated better, with the Mycroft storyline saved to S3. Might have even made more sense too- if he'd exhausted his options in New York, why not go to back to London? That's just me though.

The only part about the Bell storyline that I'd agree with is that if I was Bell and I did my duty, taking a bullet for Sherlock and Sherlock never came to visit me, I'd be upset about that, but that would be it.

Edited May 23, 2014 by Danielg342

[johntfs]

 

I quite like this incarnation of Sherlock, I realize it's not quite as perfect and amazing as Sherlock on BBC but there's plenty to go around when it comes to this character in my opinion.

 

For my part, I don't really see the BBC Sherlock as all that perfect or amazing.  It's a programme (British spelling, heh) that has all the classic Sherlock Holmes trappings (John Watson, male ex-Afghanistan veteran doctor; 221B Baker Street; Mycroft "running" the British government, etc) but lacks the original's soul.  Elemenary either avoids or subverts the trappings, but it keeps the essence of Sherlock Holmes.

[caseylane]

I think BBC Sherlock has had a couple of truly amazing episodes but the rest were meh or made me want to throw something at my television. Elementary has never once endangered my televsion and has often left me truly amazed at the skilles of JLM and LL. I also really love the secondary characters much more on Elementary.

 

If I had to choose one I would choose Elementary because of overall steady joy vs moments of brilliance.

[johntfs]

I tend to look at Sherlock as a very loosely related prequel to Elementary.  In Sherlock, Sherlock is indulged because of his great genius and shielded from most of the consequences that his behavior would realistically bring.  In the third series finale, Sherlock is essentially told, "England needs you, so welcome back from your fifteen minutes of exile you murdering little scamp, you."  In the end Sherlock is kind of bearable to me because I "know" that at the end ot it, Sherlock takes his big fall and hits rock bottom.  Elementary is what happens in the aftermath when Sherlock is climbing out of his impact crater, when there is no more indulgence and consequences are ever-present.

[Cress]

Sorry it took so long to reply. I was getting bored of arguing

 

 

However, I cannot say that about those detectives for sure, because the writers never gave me the counterbalance- all I know are the negative traits.

And I don't see those as negative traits. I see them as human traits. If all you knew of Bell were the first couple episodes where he was skeptical of Holmes and trying to prove him wrong, wouldn't he be exactly like the people who drew the childish drawings?

 

And as for counterbalance, doesn't Joan's judgement count for anything? She's the one who told Sherlock about the caricature of them dumping on a police badge. She's the one who tried to lecture Holmes about the need to be nicer. If Joan isn't a level-headed person who can be trusted to tell Sherlock when HE'S the problem (not the police), then who can be trusted? I factor Joan's reactions to Sherlock into things, as well as me watching Sherlock be an arrogant prick on screen. Therefore I give the other detectives the benefit of the doubt that they're probably just Detective Bell-End. You admit yourself that Bell-End was portrayed sympathetically. The only thing you had against him was that his case was easy to solve. So all that means is maybe he's stupid, or else the case required some kind of specialized knowledge/insight that only Holmes have. Even if Detective Bell-End is stupid, it's only "stupid" relative to a genius. Did he deserve to be called "bell-end" at all and scared off from asking Holmes for help?

 

Overall, I found the storyline convincing as is. I didn't find it defective at all, except in the episode where Sherlock says that he thought back on Bell getting shot, and claimed "I did nothing wrong". Arrogant prick.

 

I don't want to start ranting about BBC Sherlock, but I do think the show has many flaws, including the way Sherlock is indulged to the point where he goes to Buckingham Palace in a stupid bedsheet. He's more like a spoiled ranty child than a grownup detective in my opinion. Just like Jim Moriarty is a self-destructive psychopath who should have been shot dead by any Colonel Moran who cared about profitable criminal business instead of indulging a brat. I wish that Elementary had not made Moriarty equally psychotic and willing to destroy her own business over an obsession.

Edited May 30, 2014 by Cress

[johntfs]

 

I wish that Elementary had not made Moriarty equally psychotic and willing to destroy her own business over an obsession.

 

I didn't see that in her portrayal.  Moriarty was exactingly careful to avoid revealing herself as who she really was until she needed to do so to save the life of someone about whom she cared, Sherlock.  Even going into his hospital room after his "overdose" wasn't something she was doing to gloat.  She cared about him.  She wanted to take him with her to heal and get clean again.  Then together they could rule the world. Okay, that last bit might have both psychotic and a product of my fan-wanking imagination.  In any case, it's clear to that Natalie Dormer's Jamie Moriarty was far more believeable as a global criminal mastermind than was Jim Moriarty from the BBC's Sherlock.

[Danielg342]

Cress, I think we're just going to go around in circles so there's nothing I'm going to add...so I'm stopping here.

[Cress]

 

Moriarty was exactingly careful to avoid revealing herself as who she really was until she needed to do so

I wasn't talking about revealing her identity. I was talking about the fact that she sent Moran to New York from London and ordered him to murder somebody using the serial killer method. She set him up to be captured and possibly killed by Holmes. For what? What logical reason? He'd left London behind. Moran coming to New York only made Holmes more motivated in solving Irene's death and finding out the real killer. Then Irene comes to New York herself and hides out at that house, despite the fact that there are enough clues to lead Holmes there. Then Irene kills her own henchmen, and she whines about how she didn't want Holmes to figure out her moneymaking scheme. Then WHY come to New York instead of letting intermediaries do the crime? Why? There is no logic to her supposed "criminal mastermind" genius. None. If we just accept that she's crazy, fine. But I don't like Moriarty just being crazy and irrational and obsessed with Holmes. I like Moriarty being an evil genius who isn't crazy, just amoral, and who doesn't care about Holmes except as being an obstacle to be trod underfoot. I don't like Moriarty as a stalker who'll destroy his or her own business just to get to Holmes.

 

So to me, no, Irene Moriarty is not in any fashion a better criminal mastermind than Jim Moriarty. They are the same. Might as well be brother and sister. Only improvement is Irene is a woman and that Holmes didn't defeat her; Joan did. So that's slightly better than BBC Sherlock. But the difference is only slight to me.

Edited June 4, 2014 by Cress

[ali59]

I just saw Jonny Lee Miller in "Prime Suspect: 3" from 1993.  He's just a baby!  I didn't even know it was him at first and had to go back and watch his scene again.  Then I could see it!

[johntfs]

My first encounter with him was in the then awesome but now hilariously dated 1995 "Hackers."  He co-starred with Angelina Jolie and became her first husband. 

[jeansheridan]

JLM sounds so much like Anthony Hopkins on this show. I get such a Hannibal vibe off of him when he is monologing. It isn't unpleasant but makes me want them to do a film together. Such a plummy accent.

[Driad]

 

This may be the best thread for this question -- Why call the characters Holmes and Watson?  The trope of brilliant detective and assistant has been done many times, even outside the crime field (see House, MD).  Making them Holmes and Watson probably got the show more attention at the beginning, but even then it seemed to me that the creators were patting themselves on the back for cleverly setting the show in the present day and making Holmes a woman, as if those had not been done before.  Nowadays, it mostly leads to useless messages (like this one) wondering about this question or comparing Elementary to canon Conan Doyle or to BBC Sherlock.  I like this show (usually) but I might like it better if they had given the characters other names and avoided the excess baggage.

[Eneya]

I wonder... why not? I do like the modern interpretation of both. Holmes and Watson have been many things, including mice, so... I nejoy contemporary version set in New York. I don't have a serious enough reason of why not though that does not mean that the lack of reason why not to do something should be a reason to do something, I know. :)

[Boton]

 

Why call the characters Holmes and Watson?  The trope of brilliant detective and assistant has been done many times, even outside the crime field (see House, MD).  Making them Holmes and Watson probably got the show more attention at the beginning, but even then it seemed to me that the creators were patting themselves on the back for cleverly setting the show in the present day and making Holmes a woman, as if those had not been done before.  Nowadays, it mostly leads to useless messages (like this one) wondering about this question or comparing Elementary to canon Conan Doyle or to BBC Sherlock.  I like this show (usually) but I might like it better if they had given the characters other names and avoided the excess baggage.

 

I think it's a great question.  For me, it comes down to how much of the Holmes/Watson back story or expectation they want to bring into the new incarnation.  For example, I loved House, but it took me absolutely forever to understand that House and Wilson were Holmes and Watson.  Once I did, so much fell into place:  the recreational drug use before House's injury, the misanthropy and genius, the epic friendship, the odd and endearing way women seem to fall at Wilson's feet (echoing John "Three Continents" Watson).  It all suddenly made sense.

 

I think, with Elementary, the more they want to play with these elements -- stretching one to be more extreme, minimizing another to make it nearly disappear -- the more they have to use the names to help you understand the template.  

[Eneya]

I think that the audience is an intelligent as the writers allowes it to be. However, I am fed up with the dubming down that is happening in mainstream culture to the point that it now has to be spelled out what something is referring to, making people lazy. I know... back in my day... get off my lawn. I just... I like to enjoy at least some brain cells activity while watching stuff on the telly.

Edited November 7, 2014 by Eneya

[jeansheridan]

As I progress through Season 2 I love JLM more. He is so odd and twitchy. I am impressed that the addiction has remained in the forefront. As much as Nurse Jackie. It is a performance without ego. I do think the entire show would be better if they just did 13 eps. There is a lot of filler.

[tumamita]

I don't know why but there is something about Sherlock...

 

...something sexy.

 

I am ashamed of this. Carry on.

[basil]

I don't know why but there is something about Sherlock......something sexy. I am ashamed of this. Carry on.

 

 

Oh, I find him very hot (and I'm not ashamed of it at all). I think he was totally full of it when he told Joan he finds sex "disgusting". I love that he's so open and experimental about it. The first time we meet him, he is freshly out of handcuffs (after we see a suspiciously androgynous person leaving) so we know he can be submissive, yet he "ravaged" Joan's friend (which sounds pretty dominant).

 

He writes erotica and is well-acquainted with dominatrixes and the ways of high-end call girls. It was unclear whether the sisters were a threesome (probably not, since he talks about a comparison). We also know he is capable of tender love-making (Irene). It would not surprise me at all if we were to see him at some point with a man. I, for one, would volunteer.

 

tmi? Sorry (not really).

[johntfs]

I figure Sherlock had each sister once and then again has a threesome.  Sherlock is all about gathering as much... data as possible.

[basil]

I figure Sherlock had each sister once and then again has a threesome.  Sherlock is all about gathering as much... data as possible

 

.

 

Point taken. Likely, given the voyeurism he exhibited with the two hookers cum robbers that he was bait for in season one (handcuffs in that one, too), he likely indulged in a bit of that as well, pre sibling coitus.

 

This Sherlock is my kind of man.

[sinkwriter]

Basil and I were chatting a bit in the most recent episode thread about Sherlock's clothing choices, and I thought I'd bring my new comment about it here, since it's more Sherlock-focused than specific-episode-focused. 

 

I've been thinking that Sherlock's seemed a lot more "buttoned up" in costume in comparison to the earlier seasons and was wondering if there was an actor, writing and/or costuming reason for it, given what Holmes has been through and why he might close up outwardly. I wasn't sure if his costuming was much different from before because I haven't rewatched the other seasons in a while, so tonight for fun I rewatched the pilot and second episode.

 

First of all, so fun! I'd forgotten just how funny Jonny Lee Miller is, and how he and Lucy work well together, bantering energetically and snarking at one another. 

 

Regarding the clothes... I still think he's more buttoned up these days, and while the pilot and second episode are only a small contrast sample, I think they do show Sherlock in a looser design back then. In those two episodes he wore a lot of wacky t-shirts (with sayings on them like "I'm not lucky, I am good" or "Good Lookin'," LOL) and over his t-shirts he'd wear the usual long-sleeved button-down shirts but he left them completely unbuttoned. Or he wore those short-sleeved t-shirts but with a vest over them instead of a shirt. Much more casual, and those shirts were totally open, whereas now he's got them buttoned up to the chin. So I find it interesting and wonder if Jonny has a specific reasoning behind the costume shift, if he feels Sherlock is in a place mentally where he's trying to close up, emotionally and through appearance. Given all that he went through with Moriarty, and then the struggles with his brother, and losing Joan at the brownstone and being alone in London for quite a while, despairing before he met Kitty... I could see why he might start to create a protective outer barrier to stay strong. Or maybe it's to demonstrate how controlled Sherlock is trying to be right now, whereas back when we first met him in the pilot he was more "wild" and out of control, losing his temper, challenging or even taunting and messing with Joan. So maybe his costumes back then were meant to be more "rock 'n roll" to show he'd just gotten out of rehab and now he's buttoning up more in some semblance of gaining more control but maybe going to the opposite extreme as he fights the banalities of sober life. Or something. I don't know yet, because the season's not done, but I'd love to hear Jonny's take on the character. As keeper of his character, I'd think he might be able to shed some fascinating light on the topic.

 

Anyway, just something I found interesting and curious.

[sinkwriter]

Over the past week or so I've been watching the first portion of Season 1. Just got to episode 13 and I think that's the first time I've noticed Sherlock with his collar buttoned up to the neck. The episode before showed him walking through the precinct with a button down shirt on, and it was open enough to show a tiny bit of chest hair, so I think this next episode was the first time he started buttoning all the way up.

 

Interestingly enough, this episode occurs not long after the first incident with "M" coming back into his life -- Sherlock captured and almost killed Sebastian Moran, until he realized Moran was telling the truth that he was not Moriarty and was in fact simply working for the shadowy figure. I'll have to keep watching the rest of the season and see if Sherlock remains buttoned up for good after this major event in his life, but I imagine it may very well be so! The first time "M" comes into Sherlock's life in NYC may be the catalyst that closed up Sherlock. It's like defensive armor. I would be fascinated to know if this was an intentional idea on Jonny's part (or the costume department).

Edited February 15, 2015 by sinkwriter

[editorgrrl]

According to this 2013 article, it was JLM's idea: http://www.ew.com/article/2013/02/07/elementary/4

[johntfs]

I've been doing a Sherlock and Elementary rewatch over the past few days in preparation for Elementary returning (and the promised Sherlock Christmas special).  As I've watched them, I was reminded of a situation in Douglas Adams' Hitchhiker series.  At one point Zaphod Beeblebrox is placed into a machine that is supposed to drive him permanently insane.  The machine in question creates a display of the entire universe and points out the individual's utter insignificance within it.  Zaphod endures this and emerges unscathed if mildly self-satisfied.  We learn that Zaphod survived because he entered a slightly different universe before entering the machine.  That universe had been designed with him in mind and thus he was the most important thing in it.  He had Zaphod entered the machine in his real universe, he would have been shattered like anyone else.

 

Sherlock takes place in the first universe where Sherlock Holmes is the most important being within it and the universe accommodates him.  Elementary takes place in the second universe where Sherlock Holmes is just another carbon-based waterbag like all the rest of us.

[baron banan]

Do you think that Sherlock could ever trusk/live/work with someone who is addicted to heroin, got broken heart by one of the worst criminal minds (Moriarty), and spend most of time cut off from any form of society? Do you think that Sherlock would help this "Sherlock type someone" in his case/problem, knowing that this person (according to his IQ) might be the master of crime?

Edited November 10, 2015 by baron banan

[johntfs]

He might be able to do it briefly but not as an ongoing relationship.  The actually explored this question in the Season 3 episode, "One Watson, One Holmes."

[zxy556575]

I recently Netflixed a few episodes of Eli Stone, which ran from 2008-2009, and was really taken by how different that character is from Sherlock. Jonny uses entirely different voices, mannerisms, and demeanors for the two roles. Eli Stone wasn't all that long ago, but Jonny also acts so much younger there, and it's not just the thicker hair.  For Sherlock, he brings a sense of age and gravitas along with the acerbic impatience and world-weary cynicism.

 

The guy doesn't get nearly enough credit/recognition for his acting, is what I'm saying.

Edited November 28, 2015 by lordonia

[johntfs]

I know what you mean.  I recently saw Aeon Flux again and was mildly astonished to recognize Jonny Lee Miller in that movie.  The same kind of goes with Hackers.  At some point I'm just going to have to buckle down, find and watch Trainspotting.

[topanga]

Long time reader, first-time poster (for this show, anyway). 

 

Forgive me if it's been discussed before, but does Sherlock Holmes -- in the CBS version of the show -- have a mental health diagnosis (other than drug addiction)? At times he seems Aspergian, at times he seems somewhere else along the Autism spectrum, but most times he simply seems like a genius who has difficulty with interpersonal relationships, in-part because of his great intelligence. But in addition to his overall difficulty with relationships, he's rarely able to empathe with others' feelings--before Joan that is. He's good at deducing how another person is feeling and why they're feeling that way, he doesn't have patience for feelings or behaviors that aren't rational. And he seems to avoid touching people--except during sex, which he views as exercise as a means of collecting data on the female species.  JLM does an excellent job of portraying a complicated and strange but always fascinating character. 

 

I'm still catching up on my viewing--right now, I'm on the 2nd episode of season 3. So if some of these questions are answered in later episodes, MY BAD!!!

[Athena]

Forgive me if it's been discussed before, but does Sherlock Holmes -- in the CBS version of the show -- have a mental health diagnosis (other than drug addiction)? At times he seems Aspergian, at times he seems somewhere else along the Autism spectrum, but most times he simply seems like a genius who has difficulty with interpersonal relationships, in-part because of his great intelligence. But in addition to his overall difficulty with relationships, he's rarely able to empathe with others' feelings--before Joan that is. He's good at deducing how another person is feeling and why they're feeling that way, he doesn't have patience for feelings or behaviors that aren't rational. And he seems to avoid touching people--except during sex, which he views as exercise as a means of collecting data on the female species.  JLM does an excellent job of portraying a complicated and strange but always fascinating character.

 

Welcome! I do not believe the show has ever diagnosed Sherlock officially. Mentions of his uniqueness have been referenced. We get a bit more about his background over time and we do see that he is more an introvert/loner type, mostly due to his intelligence and thinking style. I actually think this Sherlock is capable of great empathy and it's part of the reason he likes being a detective. He does have a sense of justice and has been shown to relate to people especially victims. I think Joan brought it out more though, but he's had his own kind of friendships before her. I think Sherlock is very patient when necessary, but he reads people very well. He does avoid touching people, but that's not extremely unusual given his other traits. JLM does a brilliant job in his portrayal and the quietness of the acting is something I love about this show. 

 

Hope you enjoy the journey watching the rest of the episodes.

[frenchtoast]

I agree with you, Athena, I think he can show great empathy, but he also does not suffer fools gladly. 

[DeLurker]

Long time reader, first-time poster (for this show, anyway). 

 

Forgive me if it's been discussed before, but does Sherlock Holmes -- in the CBS version of the show -- have a mental health diagnosis (other than drug addiction)? At times he seems Aspergian, at times he seems somewhere else along the Autism spectrum, but most times he simply seems like a genius who has difficulty with interpersonal relationships, in-part because of his great intelligence.

There's been no discussion of a mental health issue on the show that I recall - just the addiction and being a genius.

 

I can see where you might pick up on some behaviors that are within the Asperger's/Autism spectrum, but those are such wide spectrums  -  covering so many characteristics/behaviors and every degree of severity.  Even for those of us with a direct knowledge of Asperger's and autism based on personal experience, there is no "typical". 

 

I'd agree that he has difficulty with interpersonal relationships, but I attribute that to a choice.  He chooses not to follow social norms and standards often because he finds them to intellectually have no benefit to him.  He's conscious of how this makes him come across and is indifferent to it (most of the time).  If he were in the Asperger's or autism spectrum on this front, he would not understand why societal expectations matter and effect his interaction with others (based on my experience with autism). 

 

He's shown himself to be very reserved in general, but I'll attribute that to upbringing and just being English.  I agree 100% with Athena that he has shown great compassion and empathy at times.  Often with no or very few words, but the emotion is vivid.

 

Welcome to the world of Elementary!  I've been along since the beginning and have been very pleased with how they've developed the story.  There are some things that tie back to the books, but I don't think that has dictated to TPTB what should happen never deviate from the source.  For the viewers who have a better knowledge of the books, they usually connect the dots much more quickly.  And as one who has only read a couple of the books way back when, my lack of "canon" knowledge has not hurt me - the show does not have the expectation that the viewer knows the originals chapter & verse.

[Writing Wrongs]

I've started re-watching season 1. I'd forgotten how Sherlock dressed cooler, in vests and t-shirts and longer hair.. Now with his haircut and buttoned up collars and fidgets, he reminds me of Karl from Sling Blade.

[MisterGlass]

I found out today that there is actually a New York City Bee Keeper's Association.  Apparently there are hives on rooftops around the city.  Also, beekeeping in the city was legalized in 2010, probably around the time that this show was in development.  I wonder if that inspired them to work in Holmes's beekeeping interest.

[basil]

Quote

 I wonder if that inspired them to work in Holmes's beekeeping interest.

It couldn't have hurt. That Holmes became a beekeeper is canon, though he didn't do so til after he retired. It's true that beekeeping in NYC is becoming more popular. I have a hive on my roof.