neadods: (Default)
neadods ([personal profile] neadods) wrote2012-05-17 07:26 pm
Entry tags:

It's Elementary, My Dear Beast

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.

[identity profile] prof-pangaea.livejournal.com 2012-05-18 12:02 am (UTC)(link)
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.

[identity profile] tiggerallyn.livejournal.com 2012-05-18 02:21 am (UTC)(link)
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. :)

[identity profile] penguineggs.livejournal.com 2012-05-18 06:35 am (UTC)(link)
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?
Edited 2012-05-18 10:00 (UTC)

Scott and Bailey

[identity profile] penguineggs.livejournal.com 2012-05-18 11:23 am (UTC)(link)
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.
ext_5937: (Default)

[identity profile] msdori.livejournal.com 2012-05-19 02:23 am (UTC)(link)
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*
Edited 2012-05-19 02:31 (UTC)
ext_5937: (Default)

[identity profile] msdori.livejournal.com 2012-05-19 02:25 am (UTC)(link)
Also, I've finally seen the first two Sherlock episodes.

OMG, SO MUCH FLAIL!