View Single Post
Old May 17 2012, 05:57 PM   #204
Christopher's Avatar
Re: Lucy Liu cast as Watson in CBS' Sherlock Holmes show

Angel4576 wrote: View Post
I don't know that they'll be following the canon that closely. Most likely they'll take the two lead characters and then drop them into the standard CBS-drama template.
And as I've already said, your assumption that "the standard CBS-drama template" equals "romance between the two leads" does not match up with reality.

Granted this is more from expectation rather than observation...
Obviously. You're so mired in your expectations that you've already made up your mind regardless of the evidence. As Holmes himself said, "It is a capital mistake to theorise in advance of the facts."

Cultural idiosyncrasies - a black Holmes would defacto have the same cultural background and values as a white Holmes?
But would American viewers understand how the Afro-British cultural background differs from the white British cultural background, or from the African-American background? Heck, it'll be an accomplishment if the writers even portray his Britishness authentically.

Perhaps it's just the shows that I watch, but it seems more common than uncommon that shows with a couple of leads generally tend to eventually flirt with shippers if not going down that route completely.
It must just be the shows you watch, because I've seen a number of shows where that's simply not the case. You're making far too many assumptions beyond the evidence.

I think it's fair to say that the archetypal interpretation of the story is going to lead to the expectation that Holmes and Watson are male. I doubt that many heard the news that there was going to be a new Sherlock Holmes series and instantly concluded that this would probably feature a male Holmes and female Watson. Why would they?
So what the hell is wrong with challenging assumptions? Make up your mind! Moments ago you were criticizing CBS for being too formulaic and safe, and now you're saying they're wrong to defy expectations!

Both of the examples above changed the fundamental dynamic of Holmes/Watson, both transplanted the action to America, and both moved the story into the modern era. Neither story met with much success.
The ultimate in spurious objections, and a gross abuse of statistics. This is the same BS you hear when a movie with a female action lead does badly. They never admit it's just because it wasn't a good movie; they insist on blaming it on the sex of the lead character, even though they never do that in the many, many cases where a movie with a male lead fails. Okay, sure, there have been two movies where Holmes was given a female partner and they flopped. But how many Holmes adaptations with a male Watson have also flopped? Quite a few, I'm sure. (Does anyone even remember the Matt Frewer Holmes movies?) It's no surprise that two given Holmes movies in the past have failed, because the majority of movies are failures, period. Statistically, the fact that both movies with female partners for Holmes happened to fail does not prove any kind of causation, because the probability that any two given movies with a random trait in common would both fail is high to begin with. It would take a far larger statistical sample to demonstrate any meaningful correlation, and even then, correlation is not proof of causation.

If you're going to defend your view of Sherlock Holmes, you should at least try to employ his methods in formulating your arguments.
Written Worlds -- My blog and webpage
Christopher is online now   Reply With Quote