Far Inferior to the BBC's "Sherlock," but - Elementary (2012) Discussion

[–] hilaryjrp 8 years ago

Well, at least you stooped to explain at length the farness of its inferiorability.

reply

[–] !!!deleted!!! (60102715) 8 years ago

It doesn't really need explaining. The shows are both good in their own right, though Elementary is a relatively cliche police procedural with decent actors, while every episode of Sherlock is like a movie featuring A-List film actors. The writing of the former is decent television writing. The writing of the latter is award winning film quality.

reply

[–] maryrosenkranz 8 years ago

Well, you kind of said it: Sherlock is considered a mini series(with all the luxuries that go with those). Yes, A-list actors, whom are now hard to pin down to make Sherlock. Elementary is a regular tv series(much lower budget, which means so much revolves around just that). To compare them on that basis is not really fair.

reply

[–] heart_in_ohio 7 years ago

I have to agree with you and second your point. They are two different beasts, each of them very much different than the other in most ways possible. Comparing them is kind of counter-intuitive, people lol. Not really fair or realistic at all.

reply

[–] terminaltrip421 8 years ago

elementary is far superior on every objective front. characters, realism, depth of story, performances, crime and crime solving, et al.

sherlock is good enough for british TV (of which I generally prefer comedies) but the most important aspect (of that series in particular) 'the crime' is rendered uninteresting by the fact that it's easily solvable in most cases yet the protagonist manages to take substantially longer than the audience to solve it. additionally the characters in general aren't deep, some performances (like moriarty) are downright laughable, the story while not shallow certainly lacks the depth of that which elementary has developed and employs regularly.

hell, virtually every british show I've seen I've preferred over sherlock. misfits, skins (first four series), death in paradise (first two series), dirk gently, the wrong mans, the inbetweeners, cuckoo, etc, etc, etc.

if you don't have anything nice to say ...you're probably a butthole

reply

[–] !!!deleted!!! (60102715) 8 years ago

Sorry, but you are not an objective viewer. You are just as subjective as the rest of us, pal, and there are many reasons why Sherlock is clearly the superior of the two shows.

The acting, the writing, and the plot lines of Sherlock are A-list film quality. Indeed, each show is a film. Elementary is a very good police procedural, television quality, but it's often cliche and, though it has decent actors in the leads and decent writers, they're no match for Benedict Cumberbatch, Martin Freeman, Andrew Scott, and Mark Gatiss.

Just take a look at the awards comparison (links below) if you really want to be objective. There's a reason why Andrew Scott (Sherlock's Moriarty) won the Best Supporting Actor one season, beating out Martin Freeman's Watson for the award. With all due respect to Natalie Dormer, she's not going to be winning any awards for her "Jamie" Moriarty. Please. Even if you disregard the many British awards that Sherlock has received (BAFTA, Edinburgh International Television Festival), it still towers over Elementary in nominations and awards.

Understand that I like both shows, but one is a fairly typical, but good, police procedural television show, while the other is in a class all its own due to many factors, including reasons that I listed here. Need I go on?

Compare and contrast for yourself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_awards_and_nominations_received_by_Sherlock
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_(TV_series)#Awards_and_nominations

reply

[–] wqxyzcj 8 years ago

How, exactly, a number of rewards proves anything? Crtics are just as subjective as the rest of the people. And wouldn't it take more effort and creativity to keep the TV show with over ninety six episodes so far (therefore in a need for more plot lines and character development) on the air, than the one with three episodes every two years? And if everyone is subjective, why bring the rewards as a proof in the first place? Both TV shows are still being watched by millions of viewers.

reply

[–] !!!deleted!!! (60102715) 8 years ago

I wouldn't call them "rewards." They're awards. It is true that critics are just as subjective as anyone else, but most of those awards were not decided by critics. In fact, critics prefer Elementary over Sherlock, if you average all of the critics' opinions (compare https://www.rottentomatoes.com/tv/elementary and https://www.rottentomatoes.com/tv/sherlock). Awards are most often bestowed by peers in the industry and viewers who watch the shows.

reply

[–] David-351 7 years ago

Also, very British. 3 episdes per year, and a Christmas Special, if you are lucky.

reply

[–] hilaryjrp 8 years ago

it's often cliche

The word you're looking for is "cliched." The noun is "cliche"; the modifier is "cliched."

Just a word of advice. It is almost never successful to make your debut on a fan board, whether on IMDB or elsewhere, with proclamations of the inferiority of the show/film the board concerns. You're entitled to your enthusiasm, but when that enthusiasm is presented as a taunt or a put-down, it ceases to be enthusiasm and places you in a vulnerable position--largely because you have taken it upon yourself to indirectly (or directly) insult the show/film people on the board love.

There is a board on IMDB called "Sherlock."

reply

[–] !!!deleted!!! (60102715) 8 years ago

I'm not new to IMDb boards. I am not enthusiastic about this subject. I like both shows and desire intelligent discussion about them. Though I was unaware that anyone who has watched both Sherlock and Elementary think that the latter is superior when I posted my topic here, I am learning why some actually do. I still disagree, and I can articulate exactly why I disagree, but I'm open to discussion. Don't be so thin-skinned.

The word you're looking for is "cliched." The noun is "cliche"; the modifier is "cliched."

Wrong. I'm using "cliche" properly because "cliche" is a French word and I'm using it as such. There is no such word as "cliched" in French. As an American grammar article discussing the use of this word says, "Though cliche came into English as a noun, it retains its French form -- and that form is a past participle, perfectly happy to be used as an adjective. English is full of such French words, some used as nouns (divorcee, souffle, negligee), others as adjectives (passe, flambe)." http://throwgrammarfromthetrain.blogspot.com/2011/09/thats-so-cliched.html

In other words, save your IMDb etiquette and grammar lectures for someone who doesn't know what s/he is doing.

reply

[–] hilaryjrp 8 years ago

Thank you, thank you ever so much, for a grammar lecture from a blogspot! "Master," you are a deep and profound thinkee, but nous ne parlons pas le francais ici, mais l'anglais--tu vois? Look at the thread you have created, Master, with a banal one-sentence opener. No wonder you prefer "Sherlock!" 

But it's "cliched." You can use a French word as a modifier without the participial form if it is used with the predicate nominative. Have a day full of MacGuffins, Master.

And don't be so thin-skinned! We love Masters of All Knowledge on the "Elementary" board!

reply

[–] !!!deleted!!! (60102715) 8 years ago

Oh, I hit a nerve. I've no desire to engage in pretentious one-upmanship, so here you go: You win! YEAH! You are the winner! I bow before you. Okay? Great.

Ps. "Master Voorhees" is a film joke. Note the avatar.

reply

[–] terminaltrip421 8 years ago

Sorry, but you are not an objective viewer. You are just as subjective as the rest of us, pal, and there are many reasons why Sherlock is clearly the superior of the two shows.

this is a tired notion perpetuated by critics who rarely try and exercise objectivity. am I just as subjective as anyone else when it comes to 'preferred viewing habits'? absolutely. but I tend to objectively critique things I watch. in many cases it leads to a show I'd tell other people isn't very good despite my watching it, quitting watching or watching for a mindless reason.

things like motivation, depth of character, realism, et *beep* cetera are something that can be judged objectively. how they influence your feelings is where it becomes subjective.

if you don't have anything nice to say ...you're probably a butthole

reply

[–] jimmer69 8 years ago

'Elementary is a very good police procedural, television quality, but it's often cliche and, though it has decent actors in the leads and decent writers, they're no match for Benedict Cumberbatch, Martin Freeman, Andrew Scott, and Mark Gatiss'

It's funny because Miller and Cumberbatch literally exchange roles in the play, 'Frankenstein'. In one showing, one of the two would be the Doctor, the other would be the monster. Then the next showing they'd switch. Not sure that happens if one actor is far superior to the other. Miller hasn't gotten the credit he deserves for his Holmes and that's a shame, but he does an equally exceptional job as Sherlock (though the characters are written differently so there has to be some changes).

I think it would be fair to compare the way each Sherlock is written and say you prefer one over the other, but not that one is a better actor over the other just because one has gotten so much praise and the other hasn't...yet.

BTW, this is coming from a huge Cumberbatch fan.

reply

[–] thesnowleopard 8 years ago

sherlock is good enough for british TV (of which I generally prefer comedies) but the most important aspect (of that series in particular) 'the crime' is rendered uninteresting by the fact that it's easily solvable in most cases yet the protagonist manages to take substantially longer than the audience to solve it. additionally the characters in general aren't deep, some performances (like moriarty) are downright laughable, the story while not shallow certainly lacks the depth of that which elementary has developed and employs regularly.

This. Sherlock is an entertaining show in many respects, even a ground-breaking show in some ways. But as an adaptation of the Sherlock Holmes stories, it really falls short. There's a lot more focus on the "sexiness" of the two leads and their buddy chemistry than there is on the crime, which is the exact opposite of the focus in the original stories (yes, I have read them. Recently). In fact, Conan Doyle has Holmes repeatedly complain that Watson doesn't spend enough time on the crime and gets too maudlin and emotional, so it's fairly safe to say he'd raise an eyebrow at the Cumberbatch version.

Personally, I give it to the late, great Jeremy Brett for the best straight-up adaptation, but for a modern one, I like Elementary. I thought their version of the Hound of the Baskervilles was very clever and I like how they've integrated Joan's being a woman and Chinese-American into the Sherlock mythos.

I'm kind of amused at the OP complaining about Elementary being a police procedural when the Sherlock Holmes stories are arguably the first in the subgenre.

The Historical Meow http://thesnowleopard.net

reply

[–] !!!deleted!!! (60102715) 8 years ago

I disagree. I'm an enormous fan of Doyle's books and the many adaptations born from his writings. The thing that I love most about Doyle's stories are the personalities of Sherlock Holmes and John Watson. I think that both Sherlock and Elementary remain true to the source material when it comes to that relationship, the character's strengths, and their quirks. Cumberbatch's Holmes absolutely gets on Watson, over and again, about being too emotional. Miller's Holmes is too emotional. In Elementary, Watson is the cooler head.

I've never complained about Elementary being a police procedural. I said that Elementary is a "pretty decent police procedural."

reply

[–] slackersmom 8 years ago

I loved the very first episode of Sherlock. I thought it went downhill from there. Bailed not long afterward.

reply

[–] !!!deleted!!! (60102715) 8 years ago

That's probably my least favorite Sherlock episode, but I can understand why the show is not everyone's cup of tea. It can be rather demanding viewing.

reply

[–] thesnowleopard 8 years ago

That's probably my least favorite Sherlock episode, but I can understand why the show is not everyone's cup of tea. It can be rather demanding viewing.

 "Demanding" and "Cumberbatch's version of Sherlock Holmes" are not two things that have ever gone together for me. Whatever mystery there is in Sherlock is always nothing more than macguffin and is played out in the most obvious way.

Also, not a huge fan of any Sherlock Holmes adaptation that reduces Irene Adler to a whore--and a not particularly bright one, too.

The Historical Meow http://thesnowleopard.net

reply

[–] !!!deleted!!! (60102715) 8 years ago

You seem to be confusing Irene Adler's role as a dominatrix in Sherlock with her being a "whore." You can look both terms up for yourself and see why you're way off the mark here. Adler outwits Holmes more in Sherlock than she does in Elementary. Though I applaud the idea of a female Moriarty, I'm not a fan of conflating Moriarty with Adler because it waters down those two incredibly interesting, and quite different, characters.

How is Elementary's (Miller's) Holmes any less of a MacGuffin, or any less obvious, than Sherlock's (Cumberbatch's) Holmes? Both of them have extraordinary powers of deduction and hyper-keen perception. Both have unique eccentricities based on Doyle's creation. Both shows almost always have a plot reveal at the end via Holmes' expositions. Please be specific about why you think that Elementary's Holmes is better than Sherlock's Holmes so that I can understand why you think that. Enlighten me.

reply

[–] thesnowleopard 8 years ago

You seem to be confusing Irene Adler's role as a dominatrix in Sherlock with her being a "whore."

I'm not confused in the least. She was selling sex for money--ergo, prostitute, whore. It's exactly the correct term. Well...it is for that character on Sherlock. In the original story, she was an opera singer who had powerful lovers, which is a whole different thing. The King of Bohemia referred to her as an "adventuress" (which could be construed as a synonym for a prostitute), but he was a spoiled a-hole who assumed the worst about her, so that was probably just an insult. Her known profession was not prostitution. She actually was a talented artist with her own career.

Also, the original version of Irene Adler didn't need to be rescued by Sherlock. In fact, she outwitted him and rescued herself--from him. And Conan Doyle successfully makes us root for her because Holmes loses because he gives into his sexism, doesn't check up properly on the King's information, and underestimates her. He's damned lucky she wasn't the dangerous villain the King claimed she was, which is probably why Elementary's conflating her with Moriarty actually works.

Adler outwits Holmes more in Sherlock than she does in Elementary. Though I applaud the idea of a female Moriarty, I'm not a fan of conflating Moriarty with Adler because it waters down those two incredibly interesting, and quite different, characters.

I've never been a huge fan of Moriarty, who I thought was vastly overrated and an ad hoc villain thought up by Conan Doyle specifically to kill off Sherlock. But I did think it was a clever idea to conflate Moriarty with Adler--Sherlock's two smartest opponents--in one woman. Certainly more clever than making her a shallow dominatrix who turned out to be rather dim.

How is Elementary's (Miller's) Holmes any less of a MacGuffin, or any less obvious, than Sherlock's (Cumberbatch's) Holmes?

You don't quite understand what a macguffin is, do you? A macguffin is not the protagonist of a story. It is an object (like the Ark in Raiders of the Lost Ark) or a person (like Keyzer Soze in The Usual Suspects) that exists solely to motivate the characters in the story and has no "existence" or importance in its own right.

The original stories have a mystery that Holmes and Watson have to solve. In Sherlock, these plots are incidental at best--they are just a macguffin. For example, "A Study in Scarlet," in which Holmes has to figure out how a decades-old crime that occurred almost half a world away led to a revenge spree in contemporary London, becomes "A Study in Pink," in which the much-simplified mystery is that somebody is stalking Holmes and using paid serial killers to get his attention. The genuine mystery of the original becomes All About Sherlock in the Cumberbatch version.

Now, as I said, I like Sherlock for what it is, but a good police procedural (like the original source material) it is not. The real charge of Sherlock's version, "A Study in Pink," is Sherlock's self-destructiveness and how John's physical damage in the original source material is converted into a psychological damage that means he can shoot a man dead right in front of Sherlock and, when confronted on it later, shrug it off with, "Well, he wasn't a very nice man, was he?" It's not about solving the mystery. It's about the buddy bonding of two very damaged people who could be quite dangerous to society on their own, but are heroic together. Which is great if that's your thing, but a procedural or particularly faithful to the original story it ain't.

Please be specific about why you think that Elementary's Holmes is better than Sherlock's Holmes so that I can understand why you think that. Enlighten me.

Please be specific why you chose to come onto the Elementary board and be a condescending twat to everyone here when there is a perfectly good board for Sherlock available to discuss that version of the Sherlock Holmes mythos. Enlighten me.

The Historical Meow http://thesnowleopard.net

reply

[–] !!!deleted!!! (60102715) 8 years ago

I'm not confused in the least. She was selling sex for money--ergo, prostitute, whore. It's exactly the correct term. Well...it is for that character on Sherlock. In the original story, she was an opera singer who had powerful lovers, which is a whole different thing. The King of Bohemia referred to her as an "adventuress" (which could be construed as a synonym for a prostitute), but he was a spoiled a-hole who assumed the worst about her, so that was probably just an insult. Her known profession was not prostitution. She actually was a talented artist with her own career.

I guess that I'll have to do your work for you ...
From Merriam-Webster:
"Dominatrix
plural dominatrices \-ˈnā-trə-sēz, -nə-ˈtrī-sēz\
: a woman who physically or psychologically dominates her partner in a sadomasochistic encounter; broadly : a dominating woman.

Latin, feminine of dominator
First Known Use: 1971"

"Whore
1: a woman who engages in sexual acts for money : prostitute; also : a promiscuous or immoral woman

2: a male who engages in sexual acts for money

3: a venal or unscrupulous person

Middle English hore, from Old English hōre; akin to Old Norse hōra whore, hōrr adulterer"

Adler uses her dominatrix skills on high end clients, namely the British royalty. She blackmails them. She doesn't have a pimp. She doesn't prostitute herself for money. She is in complete control. It is a means to a greater end, and it is not all that she does. In fact, "A Scandal in Belgravia's" plot and character lines closely follows Doyle's A Scandal in Bohemia.

I don't know what I said in my reply to you to make you think that I don't know what a MacGuffin is, but I suspect that you're just taking silly potshots. You said that Cumberbatch's Sherlock is a MacGuffin. I asked how he serves that function any more or less than Miller's Sherlock. I didn't say that I thought Sherlock in either show serves as a MacGuffin, and I don't.

Though "A Study in Pink" won a Peabody Award and received widespread critical acclaim, it is one of the weakest episodes of Sherlock in my opinion. It's the first episode of the series. It's introducing people to the characters and to the new adaptation. Sherlock does not become a mere MacGuffin in the plot. Just like Doyle's stories, Sherlock is the focus and the emphasis is on his deductive powers and keen perception. Its shortcomings are only due to it being the origin story of the series.

Please be specific why you chose to come onto the Elementary board and be a condescending twat to everyone here when there is a perfectly good board for Sherlock available to discuss that version of the Sherlock Holmes mythos. Enlighten me.

I don't think that I'm being condescending. I think that maybe you have thin skin and need to lighten up a bit. I like Elementary, but I like Sherlock better, and while binge-watching Elementary (I'm almost to the last episode of season 3 now), I became interested in what other people think about the show. I vaguely expressed my opinion in the title of my thread's topic, and I expected some people to be hyper-defensive, but for the most part I'm just looking for intelligent conversation about the two shows. Since I'm watching Elementary now and not Sherlock, and I have explored Sherlock ad nauseam, I thought that the Elementary boards were the more appropriate place to find the discussion that I'm after. Aside from some of your odd and somewhat crude presumptions about me, I've learned something about the show even from our brief exchange, so it seems to me that I have made the right decision.

reply

[–] thesnowleopard 8 years ago

I guess that I'll have to do your work for you ...

Too bad your efforts were such an epic fail. A dominatrix for hire sells sadomasochistic sex. Ergo, she's a whore.

Adler uses her dominatrix skills on high end clients, namely the British royalty. She blackmails them.

So, she's a dishonest whore. Still makes her a prostitute.

She doesn't have a pimp.

Irrelevant. Having a pimp doesn't make you a whore. Selling your body for sex makes you a whore.

She doesn't prostitute herself for money.

What currency she uses is also irrelevant.

She is in complete control.

So, what? High-class prostitutes who stay in the trade for any length of time really have to be.

It is a means to a greater end, and it is not all that she does.

Her goals and reasons for getting into the sex trade don't change the fact that she is working in the sex trade.

In fact, "A Scandal in Belgravia's" plot and character lines closely follows Doyle's A Scandal in Bohemia.

 Oh, wait, you're serious. No, the Cumberbatch version of Irene Adler has very little in common with the original source material. The original Irene was a retired opera singer who had had several rich and illustrious lovers. She was only holding on to the photo of her and the King to keep him from having her murdered. Plus, she got married during the course of the story, so no sexy flirt chemistry with Sherlock (who is an asexual misogynist in the original story, anyway), either.

I don't know what I said in my reply to you to make you think that I don't know what a MacGuffin is, but I suspect that you're just taking silly potshots.

Easy. Because you think a macguffin is a story protagonist.

You said that Cumberbatch's Sherlock is a MacGuffin.

Nope. You did:

Me: "Whatever mystery there is in Sherlock is always nothing more than macguffin and is played out in the most obvious way."

You: "How is Elementary's (Miller's) Holmes any less of a MacGuffin, or any less obvious, than Sherlock's (Cumberbatch's) Holmes?"

The mystery is not a character. It's a plot. And I'm referring there to Sherlock the show rather than Sherlock the character, which should have been obvious from the context.

Though "A Study in Pink" won a Peabody Award and received widespread critical acclaim, it is one of the weakest episodes of Sherlock in my opinion.

Totally irrelevant. We're not talking about your subjective opinion about the episode. We're talking about how much of a police procedural it is compared to the original source material.

Sherlock does not become a mere MacGuffin in the plot.

Sherlock Holmes is not and never will be a macguffin. Please stop embarrassing yourself and go look up what a macguffin is before continuing along this train of thought.

I don't think that I'm being condescending.

Everyone else on this thread disagrees.

I think that maybe you have thin skin and need to lighten up a bit.

I think maybe you need to take your own advice if you're going to go trolling on IMDB boards.

I like Elementary, but I like Sherlock better,

We all noticed that, already. You weren't exactly subtle about your approach.

I vaguely expressed my opinion in the title of my thread's topic, and I expected some people to be hyper-defensive,

And yet, you kept right on going.

but for the most part I'm just looking for intelligent conversation about the two shows.

Doubtful, since you've received intelligent responses and have chosen to double down on being pompous.

I thought that the Elementary boards were the more appropriate place to find the discussion that I'm after.

But of course. It's not as though you could look down your nose about Elementary on the Sherlock board. People wouldn't care.

Aside from some of your odd and somewhat crude presumptions about me,

Your penchant for psychological projection is your problem. Do keep it to yourself.

I've learned something about the show even from our brief exchange, so it seems to me that I have made the right decision.

I'm reasonably certain you are the only person on this thread who feels that way.

The Historical Meow http://thesnowleopard.net

reply

[–] !!!deleted!!! (60102715) 8 years ago

Your insistence on calling Sherlock's Adler a "whore" smacks of a glib and sexist notion of what she actually does, and who she actually is, on Sherlock. It's not about the sex at all. Whatsoever. Note that Cumberbatch's Sherlock, much like Doyle's, is hardly sexual. Miller's Sherlock in Elementary, however, is quite sexual, even if the sex is sometimes for the purpose of something other than mere coitus.

Easy. Because you think a macguffin is a story protagonist.

You said that Cumberbatch's Sherlock is a MacGuffin ...

Me: "Whatever mystery there is in Sherlock is always nothing more than macguffin and is played out in the most obvious way."

You: "How is Elementary's (Miller's) Holmes any less of a MacGuffin, or any less obvious, than Sherlock's (Cumberbatch's) Holmes?"

The mystery is not a character. It's a plot. And I'm referring there to Sherlock the show rather than Sherlock the character, which should have been obvious from the context.

I know what a Macguffin is. I interpreted your comment as belittling Cumberbatch's Sherlock to a MacGuffin rather than the role of a protagonist. This can't be difficult to understand given that you said, "Whatever mystery there is in Sherlock is always nothing more than macguffin and is played out in the most obvious way." In my reading of this line you were trying to dehumanize Cumberbatch's Sherlock by relegating him to a plot device, and an obvious one at that. We misunderstood each other. I hope that this reply alleviates the misunderstanding.

Totally irrelevant. We're not talking about your subjective opinion about the episode. We're talking about how much of a police procedural it is compared to the original source material.

It's relevant because I was tipping my hat to you, acknowledging that to some small extent I think you're right about the origin episode. Also, I am not debating which show is more of a police procedural. Elementary is a police procedural TV series, and a pretty good one at that. It focuses more on the policing aspect of the stories. Each 90 minute episode of Sherlock is like a crime/drama film. It very rarely focuses on the police aspects. Unlike Elementary's Captain Gregson, Sherlock's Lestrade is not a key player in most episodes, and unlike Miller's Sherlock, Cumberbatch's Sherlock spends very little time in a police station.

Everyone else on this thread disagrees.

You clearly haven't read all of the posts in this thread.

I think maybe you need to take your own advice if you're going to go trolling on IMDB boards.

I'm not trolling. How many times have I said that I like Elementary here? If you're so offended by my thread, then don't read it. I'm sure that you have better things to do with your time.

Doubtful, since you've received intelligent responses and have chosen to double down on being pompous.

You haven't read the thread. Notwithstanding my provocative thread title, I've not been pompous.

Your penchant for psychological projection is your problem. Do keep it to yourself.

Oh, my bad. I didn't realize that you were being cordial when you called me, among other things, a "twat," and Sherlock's Irene Adler a "whore."

I'm reasonably certain you are the only person on this thread who feels that way.

Stop speaking for others; you can only speak for yourself. If you had actually read this thread, then you would know that your presumptuousness is unfounded.

I reiterate: If you don't like this thread, then don't participate in it. I'm looking for intelligent discussion, not name-calling or soothing someone's hurt feelings. Thanks.

reply

[–] thesnowleopard 8 years ago

Your insistence on calling Sherlock's Adler a "whore" smacks of a glib and sexist notion of what she actually does, and who she actually is, on Sherlock. It's not about the sex at all. Whatsoever. Note that Cumberbatch's Sherlock, much like Doyle's, is hardly sexual. Miller's Sherlock in Elementary, however, is quite sexual, even if the sex is sometimes for the purpose of something other than mere coitus.

Says the idiot who doesn't have any problem with Moffat taking a talented artist and intellectual equal to Sherlock who taught him a lesson on not underestimating women (and is innocent of the King's slander against her) in the original, and turning her into a petty criminal Damsel in Distress whose only real talent is using sex to snare people and who is too dumb to come up with a better password on her freakin' phone.

I know what a Macguffin is.

No, you clearly don't because you keep talking about protagonists being macguffins.

I interpreted your comment as belittling Cumberbatch's Sherlock to a MacGuffin rather than the role of a protagonist. This can't be difficult to understand given that you said, "Whatever mystery there is in Sherlock is always nothing more than macguffin and is played out in the most obvious way." In my reading of this line you were trying to dehumanize Cumberbatch's Sherlock by relegating him to a plot device, and an obvious one at that. We misunderstood each other. I hope that this reply alleviates the misunderstanding.

So, in other words, you completely misunderstood what I said--even though it was quite clear--and ignored my clarification of the statement in my follow-up posts. Only when I spelled it out for you, using very small words, did you finally "get" what I was saying. But did you apologize for misreading what I said? No, of course not. *You* weren't too stupid to understand me. *I* was being too complicated.

Good to know that you need things explained to you extremely simply and then won't be the least bit grateful or abashed about it.

It's relevant because I was tipping my hat to you, acknowledging that to some small extent I think you're right about the origin episode. Also, I am not debating which show is more of a police procedural. Elementary is a police procedural TV series, and a pretty good one at that. It focuses more on the policing aspect of the stories. Each 90 minute episode of Sherlock is like a crime/drama film. It very rarely focuses on the police aspects. Unlike Elementary's Captain Gregson, Sherlock's Lestrade is not a key player in most episodes, and unlike Miller's Sherlock, Cumberbatch's Sherlock spends very little time in a police station.

Blahblahblah, short version: You still refuse to acknowledge my point that by being a police procedural and playing the stories out that way, Elementary is more faithful to the original than Sherlock is. I will take that as your concession, then.

You clearly haven't read all of the posts in this thread.

Of course I have. You're just posting from a fantasy mindset where people enjoy a complete stranger talking down to them as if they're idiots simply because they don't have the same tastes in entertainment.

I'm not trolling. How many times have I said that I like Elementary here?

No. You like Sherlock and trying to browbeat Elementary fans into liking Sherlock better. Not at all the same thing.

If you're so offended by my thread, then don't read it.

If you didn't like the tone, you shouldn't have lowered it in the first place.

I'm sure that you have better things to do with your time.

I'm sure you do, too. And you started this, so what does that make you?

You haven't read the thread. Notwithstanding my provocative thread title, I've not been pompous.

Yes, I have and I will repeat--you come off like a condescending twat.

Oh, my bad. I didn't realize that you were being cordial when you called me, among other things, a "twat," and Sherlock's Irene Adler a "whore."

Of course *you'd* prefer the game of being as insulting as possible while covering it with nice words. Not a surprise, then, that calling things as they are bothers you so much. It exposes your nasty game.

Stop speaking for others; you can only speak for yourself. If you had actually read this thread, then you would know that your presumptuousness is unfounded.

Please. Stop clutching your pearls. There is ample evidence on this thread that people on this board were not pleased by your grand entrance.

I reiterate: If you don't like this thread, then don't participate in it. I'm looking for intelligent discussion, not name-calling or soothing someone's hurt feelings. Thanks.

This is IMDB. You don't get to make those decisions. Especially when you are trolling.

The Historical Meow http://thesnowleopard.net

reply

[–] wqxyzcj 8 years ago

Yes, dominatrix who uses sex to manipulate people. Just like in the books, huh? And Sherlock gets to save her life in the end, of course.

reply

[–] !!!deleted!!! (60102715) 8 years ago

Exactly.

reply

[–] hilaryjrp 8 years ago

Holmes any less of a MacGuffin

Listen, you're the Master around here, but do you know what a MacGuffin is?

reply

[–] inuimari 8 years ago

Yeah, I don't think you can compare the two.
The BBC version doesn't have to churn out 24 episodes per year and can focus more into each episode.
Elementary is a great procedural and it's great at what it does; providing a great mystery drama on a weekly basis.

Worst housemate story:
https://worsthousematestory.wordpress.com/lina-carrero/

reply

[–] !!!deleted!!! (60102715) 8 years ago

I completely agree, but given the common source material and the shows running at the same time, a comparison is inevitable.

reply

[–] elocs1 8 years ago

Well, the thing that both shows have in common is that Sherlock Holmes is the main character in each. I doubt there would have been an Elementary had Sherlock not been a great success. I was, and still am, a great Sherlock fan when I started watching Elementary and I had my doubts but came to enjoy it for what it is.
We get just 3 90 minute episodes of Sherlock every other year which is all there is and so they are treated like a movie production and everything is poured into those 3 episodes. One bad episode and a third of your season stinks.

Elementary has more than 3 times the episodes than Sherlock each season it airs so it can survive some bad ones. It's like the wine you enjoy and regularly drink but Sherlock is that special vintage you wait for every 2 years. They both have their place for me and I enjoy them for what they are.

reply

[–] !!!deleted!!! (60102715) 8 years ago

Well said, though I HATE waiting for more Sherlock episodes. What do you think about combining Adler with Moriarty?

reply

[–] CursedShadow 8 years ago

For whatever reason, I have enjoyed almost every interpretation of the character, Sherlock Holmes, going back for decades.

reply

[–] !!!deleted!!! (60102715) 8 years ago

Me too, though I could never get into Sherlock Holmes in the 22nd Century animated series, though that series gets high marks from most Doyle buffs. Have you ever read Isaac Asimov's Sherlock Holmes Through Time & Space? That's a quite interesting read.

reply

[–] BluehairedWitch 8 years ago

Feh! Sherlock started out great, but the fanboys and girls ruined it. The last couple of series were written for them and it became a mess. Too bad, the first series was bold, brash and fresh, but then deteriorated into a farce of itself.

reply

[–] arusinghnz 7 years ago

Totally agree. Hence why I lost all interest in last couple years. It just became a bore.

reply

[–] cooleon 8 years ago

It definitely is unfair to compare the two.
I gave up on BBS BS show, Elementary has become one of my favorites.

I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together.

reply

[–] mgl-92037 8 years ago

I agree it's unfair to compare the two. They have different aims, as well as different budgets. Also, one of them has decent, quirky scripts, while one of them has scripts which are complete garbage.
One of them has a competent lead in Johnny Lee Miller; the other has an overrated, under-talented, bellowing ham as the lead.
Martin Freeman is a fine actor, and while he is certainly better than Lucy Liu, I think she holds her own.
Generally I have liked Elementary when the extra characters have NOT been around.
I didn't care for Mycroft; I thought John Noble did a good job as the father, but the character didn't make sense to me; HATED the apprentice from a couple of seasons ago.

Going over all the seasons, I would say that Sherlock had a couple of nice episode at the beginning, but has been unwatchable garbage since Season II.
Elementary has been solid. While the characters have developed, I feel that the quality of the production, the writing, the acting, have all been at a steady good level since the beginning.
Sherlock comes from the people who ruined Dr Who. Basically I never watch anything with the names "Moffat" or "Gatiss" attached.

reply

[–] RowdyWichman 8 years ago

I'll have to disagree with your opinion that Elementary is "far inferior" to Sherlock.

Though I love BBC's Sherlock as much as the next guy (or girl), it does not occupy a special place in my heart quite like Elementary.

For me, I think it has a lot to do with the fact that while I enjoy Cumberbatch's Sherlock for what it is and feel he's done a great job with the character within that show, I don't find his Sherlock very likeable.

Contrast this to JLM's Sherlock, who I find immensely more likeable. JLM is able to find an emotional depth and vulnerability in his Sherlock that really helps the audience root for him despite his insurmountable ego and penchant for being an a**hole.

Holmes purists may take issue with the whole idea of a likeable Sherlock. However, I have found Elementary's take on the character to be quite successful at endearing the character to the audience, especially if you have stuck with the show over several seasons.

reply

[–] arusinghnz 7 years ago

I am glad to see that I am not the only one who thinks this way.

reply