It's Elementary, My Dear Beast

[neadods]

Promo clips are now available for the remake of Beauty and the Beast and Elementary, and I'm deeply ambivalent about them both.

Beauty and the Beast was one of the major fandoms in my life, possibly the first one to go absolutely white-hot for me... emphasis on hot. First big fandom love. First time as a BNF.

First and ugliest fandom war I've ever been in, and I was a front-line fighter.

Elementary... I've been championing it mostly for the fun of tease-trolling the people freaking out about it. Ben Cumberbatch has been remarkably classy about it, pointing out that there's already room for two Holmeses right now, so why not three? Moffat is getting pricklier by moment; from complaining it was too close to his version, he's now complaining that it's too far from canon.

As he specifically cites Watson as a woman as one of the changes, the conversation about this is probably going to take the overall tone of "Moffat is a sexist git, round #41792."

Thing is, I think he's right. Oh, not about Lucy Liu; the only problem with her casting is she'd be a better Sherlock. The entire setup is unrecognizable, and not because it's been put in America. Elementary's Holmes is in forcible rehab, having been kicked off his consulting work with Scotland Yard. His father has hired Joan Watson to be his constant companion to make sure he stays straight. Watson was a surgeon "until she lost a patient and her license" which makes me wonder just how badly she fucked up, because it's not like people don't die in surgery all the time and *not* because of medical malpractice.

They solve crime!

With the exceptions of the names, it's as if the scriptwriters put Monk (constant monitoring), House (addiction, abrasive behavior), and CSI/NCIS/blah blah (crime solving) into a blender. Which makes me wonder why they even bothered with the names. The Ritchie movies owe more to canon than this!

Will I watch them? Yeah, probably both, at least a couple of episodes. But I'm not excited about either one.

Comments

[prof-pangaea.livejournal.com]

well, as house is also an american holmes knock-off, i don't see how this series not being completely true to canon is really a big deal. it doesn't have to be canon to be a good show.

that said, it's on cbs, and so will probably be a really mediocre show at best. but surely it's not the premise itself that's at fault. i love clueless, even though it's not *exactly* emma.

[neadods.livejournal.com]

Psych is also an American Holmes knockoff; there's plenty of room for them in general. That's not what's making me twitch.

None of them used all the same character names. House hinted at it - House for Holmes, Wilson for Watson - but they let unique characters *be unique* without dropping the baggage of a name with 100 years of history and expectations on them. I'd be a heck of a lot happier if Elementary's leads were called Hoyle and Watts or something like that. Admit up front that they're basing it on Holmes but taking it their own direction.

[prof-pangaea.livejournal.com]

i am pretty cool with sherlock hound even though holmes and watson in canon are probably not cartoon dogs

[neadods.livejournal.com]

They're not cartoon mice either, but The Great Mouse Detective is littered with homages and references and isn't some entirely new thing with extremely weighted names.

I'm going to watch a couple of episodes and see, but I've got a horrible sinking feeling that Sherlock Holmes in the 22nd Century is going to owe more to canon than Elementary, and it was just 72 kinds of wrong to type that sentence.

I don't mind homage, no matter how tenuous, and I love parody, but so far Elementary seems to be neither and that's making me twitch.

[tiggerallyn.livejournal.com]

With the exceptions of the names, it's as if the scriptwriters put Monk (constant monitoring), House (addiction, abrasive behavior), and CSI/NCIS/blah blah (crime solving) into a blender. Which makes me wonder why they even bothered with the names.

I've been wrestling with this for the past day, because the trailer doesn't put forward anything recognizably Holmes beyond the name. What I do get from the trailer is something that looks like the typical CBS procedural with a quirky/damaged lead character that happens to have some recognizable names.

I'm led to two conclusions. One, there is nothing Holmesian about Elementary. Two, the series' Holmesian elements are downplayed in the trailer for Elementary because they don't sell the series well. I'm hoping for the latter, I fear the former.

I do want Elementary to be good and to thrive. Anything that gets people interested in the Canon is a good thing. And, to be frank, a competing series could prompt Moffat to up his game, which wouldn't be a bad thing.

The Ritchie movies owe more to canon than this!

They do. A Game of Shadows may just be my favorite version of FINA. :)

[neadods.livejournal.com]

something that looks like the typical CBS procedural with a quirky/damaged lead character that happens to have some recognizable names.

THIS. And the thing is, CBS has shown that's a trope that already works for them, so why bother tying it in to Holmes at all?

I'm not actually anti-Elementary; I'm just starting to wish that they'd done what they obviously wanted to do, which is stamp out a new series, period. *They could have.* Canon is out of copyright; there was absolutely nothing Moffat could do if they'd had a detective with addiction issues and an ex-army doctor.

The remake of Beauty and the Beast doesn't make me itch half as much, but then, neither Catherine nor Vincent are one of the world's most recognizable literary figures.

And while I'm with you on wanting more people to read canon, I'm wondering how many people will pick up canon after Elementary and go "WTF?" and put it back down. (Or worse, a Goldberg tie-in novel followed by the man himself bitching at Malice that Holmes fans dared correct him over canonical points. Not that I have obvious issues with him or anything.)

[penguineggs.livejournal.com]

My big problems with the casting of a female Watson against a male Holmes is the shift in power dynamic especially if this Watson is under a major professional cloud. Power dynamics between Watson and Holmes are a big area of unease for me - they're one of the few areas I think the atrocious GoT gets right, generally because of Jude Law's outstanding turn - and if you stack the decks in the way they have in this one I can't see it ending well. Point one of deck stacking: on what you've described Watson hasn't chosen to be there and Holmes doesn't want him there. Point two; Watson isn't a damaged war hero, she's a professional screw-up (and if as I don't doubt it will, it turns up to be a frame-up, cover-up, her taking the rap for someone then she becomes a damsel in distress when Holmes solves her problems for her). Point three, she's a woman which would set up enough of a power inequality without points one and two on top of it and point four she's a PoC, rinse and repeat as for point three.

Actually, the Holmes/Watson dynamic works perfectly if they're both women and the evidence is Scott & Bailey. That irons out the societal power dynamic issues and leaves it possible to explore the relationship through a different lens.

ETa: I also forgot to add that to add to the potential of massive imbalance that if Joan Watson has been hired by Sherlock's father, that really brings something screwy into the dynamic; can you imagine recasting any scene from Sherlock on the basis that the demanding, impossible person who is asking John to come halfway across London to send a text actually has the power to get you sacked?

[neadods.livejournal.com]

I may be being a polyanna here, but I don't think that Lucy as a PoC is going to make for *more of* a subordinate dynamic on top of everything else -- Psych is anther uncredited Holmes ripoff with a PoC as the sidekick/partner character and from the PoV of someone who doesn't watch often, he seems to be both treated well in general and usually the voice of reason.

The problem is, there's a terrifying amount of "everything else" loaded onto her.

can you imagine recasting any scene from Sherlock on the basis that the demanding, impossible person who is asking John to come halfway across London to send a text actually has the power to get you sacked?

I get the impression that in this case, the role of Mycroft is being played by this unknown father. (If he's actually named Mycroft, you'll hear the scream from where you are.)

That power shift bothers me on all kinds of levels. Not so much the female/male dynamic per se - that would have been adequately balanced if they'd gone ahead and made her a soldier after all, one who has the strength and presence of mind to stand up to Sherlock. (It would be more equal if they'd gone female/female - there's plenty of precedent; I'm not familiar with the show you reference, but Cagney and Lacey was hella popluar here.)

But! Whether she made the original mistake or she's covering up for someone else, she's *already* a damsel in distress by having hosed her original career in some unknown manner and needing this job for apparently both penance and a route back to healing. (The promo stuff goes rather in depth about how this allows her to "continue to try to help others" so it's not just damsel in distress but woman = nurturer, another cliche getting trotted out.)

But what bothers me the most is that she's hired to be with Sherlock. That two damaged people haven't found each other on their own but been thrown together, with, yes, the added dynamic that one of them can be removed at any time on the basis of "job performance." Moffat and Gatiss are right when they talk about the friendship being the most important thing, and this is a friendship not forged out of instant attraction and fascination, but buy and hire - by a third party, yet!

It not only deviates massively from an important part of canon, it slams a hand right on the big red button of my hinks; this Watson isn't Sherlock's property, but she's not his equal or his friend either... and even if she ever earns the latter, as long as she takes daddy's paycheck, she's never going to be the former.

Why couldn't she have been an army doctor invalided through no fault of her own? It's not like we haven't been having a war or three for the last decade. Why, why, why, WHY could she not have been introduced to Holmes by a mutual friend and formed a friendship & partnership of equals?

[penguineggs.livejournal.com]

Because it's too threatening to the status quo if she's allowed to be equal, let alone, God forbid, superior?

I'm also deeply sceptical about the idea of "forced rehab" especially enforced by a family member. Forced how?

[neadods.livejournal.com]

Forced, I get the impression, by Watson being in attendance 24/7. Which turns the character not just from friend to hireling but, I realize as I type this, to jailor.

Mutual jailors, if she really, really needs this job.

All those squicks about slavery and prison fics are just getting louder and louder in my head. Oh, they're not going to go *that* far in the show, but the heart of it is still the same premise; they do not meet as equals and that will color and warp one of the greatest friendships in literature.

[penguineggs.livejournal.com]

That's extreme capitalism for you; turning all relationships into the essentially economic.

In ASiP, one of the ways the relationship is built really quickly is that you have everyone overtly trying to put John off Sherlock (with the possible exception of Stamford, who is more proactive than he is in ACD, but still no more than benevolently neutral) except for Mycroft who tries to hire him as a spy/jailer. John's integrity in refusing that role - before asking how much, and despite his financial straits - makes you warm to John; this is a good man, with principles. But it also colours your reaction to Mycroft; anyone who tries to put his friendless brother in the position of having an in-house spy is not a good man, whatever his motives may be. I don't know how you retrieve a dynamic which starts with the John equivalent and the Mycroft equivalent on the same side *against* Sherlock.

[neadods.livejournal.com]

anyone who tries to put his friendless brother in the position of having an in-house spy is not a good man

And that's not even bringing up that Mycroft has just announced that his brother is friendless because he's incapable of having friends. (I would like it if someday Moffat & Gatiss went into why they decided to turn a friendly but distant relationship into an outright sibling war. Aside from the "Maybe he's Moriarty" moment they were going for.)

I don't know how you retrieve a dynamic which starts with the John equivalent and the Mycroft equivalent on the same side *against* Sherlock.

Someone on the other post has mentioned this is how Scully and Mulder start. But how you turn the dynamic from "he's not crazy, this shit is real" into "he's brilliant, but he still has to stay off the smack" I don't know.

Side note; one thing that I appreciate in PINK as opposed to STUD is that all through canon, Watson seems beside himself to meet Holmes; the more so every time Stamford says "Uh, he's a little weird, you know." John, on the other hand, has no problem hitting Sherlock with a reality check in their first five minutes. "That's it? I don't know your name, I don't know the address..."

[penguineggs.livejournal.com]

I would like it if someday Moffat & Gatiss went into why they decided to turn a friendly but distant relationship into an outright sibling war. Aside from the "Maybe he's Moriarty" moment they were going for.

I think it would be wise for them to keep their mouths shut given how everything each of them says gets torn apart by fans with agendas at present (see current post in my DW for details) but fwiw I think they got the idea of antagonism in general from The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes and the specific form of antagonism from what happens if you update ACD's line (Greek Interpreter, I think) about Mycroft "being, in effect, the British Government" and bring that into the 21st century through the consciousness of two left-leaning BBC writers. (Gatiss was born and brought up in a mining village in Co. Durham and lived through the miners' strike,there, for God's sake, and Moffat is Scottish with all that entails in political unease with Westminster's priorities).

The British Government - and being the power behind the British Government - has a word association now which includes extraordinary rendition, fake WMDs, going into Iraq on a lie, being too cosy with the Murdochs, covering up Mau-Mau atrocities, authorising (possibly) the Kelly assassination, Porton Down, attacks on the disabled, clause twenty-eight, bankers bonuses....it comes with a whole heap of word association shit. Death for death, Mycroft clearly has more blood on his hands as the british government than Moriarty has as the Napoleon of crime, in both his 19th century and 21st century incarnations - I think it's a lot harder to see that as justified blood at the time Sherlock's coming out.

[neadods.livejournal.com]

see current post in my DW for details

I saw that. Oh. My. God. There ought to be a sanity test before anyone can get on Twitter.

Death for death, Mycroft clearly has more blood on his hands as the British government than Moriarty has as the Napoleon of crime

Good point.

Scott and Bailey

[penguineggs.livejournal.com]

I posted this before but LJ ate it.

All you need to know about Scott & Bailey apart from the fact that Rupert Graves played Nick the dodgy barrister in series one (unlike the reviewer, I had little difficult in believing the big reveal, largely because a barrister had done precisely that to a friend of mine)and it's produced by the same people who did the UK versions of Cracker and QAF.

[msdori.livejournal.com]

I haven't seen anything for Elementary, but I saw the BatB ad in tonight's Supernatural finale, and...What the frackety frackkin' FRACK?????? Just knowing Kristin Kreuk was playing Cathy was bad enough (although I do have to admit that she can really bring the Linda Hamilton angst to the role), but WTF was up with Vincent? Scars? Really? What, are we going to get some "Beastly" deal, here?

I'm really interested in seeing what effect this series will have on the original fandom, though. Heh.

But my biggest question is, who's going to be playing Joe?!? *G*

[zinelady.livejournal.com]

This is the first I've heard of the Beauty and the Beast remake. I despised the Lana character but not so much the actress. I agree with the angst part, I think she'll do okay for the Catherine part. I find myself disappointed with Vincent...although I'll wait to hear what kind of voice he uses. I adored Ron Perlman as Vincent, the makeup, the voice. I could listen to the BatB soundtrack over and over just to hear him recite poetry.

[neadods.livejournal.com]

Is that what it was? I didn't see him clearly, and it obviously wasn't the award winning makeup.

Without the need to nurture the changeling child, is there even going to be a "Below" or is this Vincent just going to be hiding in the sewers on his own?

Actually, the one thing that I noticed right off was that the show was once again, lily-white. *headbang*headbang* 20 years and we've apparently learned nothing. If there's a Narcissa character, I'm going to gnaw through the remote.

[msdori.livejournal.com]

Also, I've finally seen the first two Sherlock episodes.

OMG, SO MUCH FLAIL!

[zinelady.livejournal.com]

Welcome to the club! You have so much to look forward to!

[neadods.livejournal.com]

What zinelady said. OMG, this show!

PS - *catch up!* Because I'm taking spoilers off Memorial day.