Oh, yeah, definitely. People would be talking about it for years. I suppose that Doherty would have to option Dibdin's novel. Even if he didn't adapt that particular story, he'd want the idea behind the story, and he'd want to do it safely and without fear of litigation. But that option also means money, which is why Elementary probably won't go down that road with the Napoleon of Crime.
Elementary returned last night. The apparent suicide of a conspiracy theory peddler led Holmes to the murders of the "Red Team" from the Army's 2009's war games. However, Holmes was basically on his own as Gregson had cut ties with Holmes after the Moran affair. This one kept me guessing. I didn't figure out the Who of the crime until just before Holmes did, and I never did figure out the Why until Holmes explained it. It was also surprisingly funny. Clyde is a wonderful addition to the cast. And the scene between Holmes and Gregson at the end was great, and the way Gregson ended the conversation was surprising. Only a few more days to the Super Bowl episode.
I love it that Holmes's hobby is messing with conspiracy theorists! And I love how casually, and correctly, the episode deflated the whole idea that it's possible for a large group of people to keep a massive secret indefinitely. The whole plot revolved around that impossibility. How refreshing, when so many works of fiction (including the immediately preceding show on CBS) depend on the mythology of vast, all-powerful evil conspiracies, to see a story that so blithely deconstructs the very idea. On the other end of the credibility spectrum, it's a bit hard to take Gregson's hostility toward Holmes seriously when Holmes is not, you know, under arrest for kidnapping and attempted murder. Realistically, he should be going to jail for a long time for those acts; the fact that he changed his mind about homicide doesn't negate the other crimes he committed. But Gregson's just letting him walk free, so he can't be as angry and judgmental as he was portrayed. It's a necessary contrivance to keep the series going, but it's hard to swallow. As for putting an episode after the Super Bowl, that's most annoying for someone like me who couldn't care less about football (American or otherwise). There's no telling when the episode will actually begin, and I can't DVR it if there's no fixed starting time. I guess my best bet is On Demand.
Except how do you prove that Holmes kidnapped and attempted to murder Moran? We saw that Moran said that he got the jump on Holmes and the wound he received in the gut was inflicted by Holmes in self-defense. Gregson's problem is that he knows that Holmes crossed a line but that his prime witness to that crime says it didn't happen. Even if they charged Holmes and took it to trial, Moran's statement would be exculpatory evidence against the state's case, and Holmes' lawyer would flog that fifty ways to Sunday. And even if the state tried to flip Moran by offering him a reduced sentence, Moran knows that Holmes is his only chance of getting revenge on Moriarty. In short, Gregson's hands are tied, and that's fueling his anger. That said, I expect Holmes and Gregson to work out their differences. The animosity Gregson has will continue to be an issue, and we'll probably see a resolution to it at the end of this season. Haven't they mentioned that Gregson has a son? My guess is that Moriarty will target Gregson's family, and he he will have to trust in Holmes to do the right thing and save his son. They've been running the episodes for free on CBS.com after they air. I'd imagine they'd do the same with the Super Bowl episode.
Unfortunately, the notion that realistically Holmes would be charged for his crimes against Moran is incorrect. Even beyond the technical difficulties in pursuing a case against Moran's testimony, there is the question of what truly is more realistic. Would the police really want to pursue charges against Holmes? They never like to pursue charges against official members who resort to torture and other forms of violence against perpetrators. Sadly it is highly unlikely they would want to make a case against an unofficial member. The unlikelihood of a conviction really makes it very improbable, were such a thing to somehow occur in reality. There is nothing realistic about momdern day Holmes. (Sadly the main realism in the original stories was the ignorance and incompetence of the police.) What there is, is a pseudorealism, where an illusion of realism is provided. So long as a superficial appearance is kept up, all is good. Violations of this pseudorealism is bad style and cleverness in maintaining the illusion is good style. But it's merely superficial.
Well, as Bell himself said last night, it would be easier for the NYPD to deal with Holmes if they paid him -- because then they could fire him. He's not an official member of the police. He's an unofficial consultant. And the real problem with charging Holmes with a crime is that Holmes would reflect badly on Gregson. He's let Holmes in on a number of investigations -- including the Moran affair -- and he would have to answer for why his unofficial consultant kidnapped, attempted to torture, and assaulted the subject the suspect. For Gregson's own self-preservation, he needs to maintain the fiction that Moran got the drop on Holmes and Holmes attacked him in self-defense. That doesn't mean that he has to like it. And he clearly doesn't. But there's nothing he can really do.
To a first approximation, senior police figures never face consequences in the rare instances a lower level policeman being tried and convicted on charges. So literal self-preservation isn't realistically the problem. But it's true that his career might be on the line. Aidan Quinn's Gregson might not be genuinely realistic. But he seems like a real person if you don't look too closely. More importantly he's pleasant company in my living room and essential to these insane but entertaining mysteries.
The series is getting better but still not really grabbing me. Liked the Huddy episode A similar story was done in ' Spoiler: The Secret of Sherlock Holmes' Play Don't see why they couldn't do it again.
I've become particularly interested in the true identity of Holms' father. He's always been portrayed as nothing more than some affluent faceless entity on the other side of a phone or text message. The fact that Holms tried to have someone fake his dad to Lucy Liu's character only added to the intrigue. I'm even starting to believe in the possibility that Spoiler: Holms' dad Holms' dad IS Moriarty himself, constantly testing him and forcing him to grow his skills of deduction in the only way a sociopath father could. The death of Holms' girlfriend back in England might have been the result of Holms Sr. being displeased with his son's choice of companions. It's a stretch, I know, but there has been enough effort in this show to conceal his identity, as well as implicate an extremely shady and mixed past for Holms. I definitely think there's something there. Additionally, a guilty pleasure of mine would have Holms Sr. being played by Hugh Laurie. They both have similar facial features and stature and despite the actors being only 15 years apart in real life, they could easily age Laurie a bit to make him more age-appropriate. Probably not going to happen, but I think it would be cool to see Laurie working again as an evil Holms/House-type character who is just as brilliant as Holms himself, but completely bereft of compassion or conscience in favor of pure logic, reason and cold intellect.
^I've heard that theory before, but I think I prefer the idea that "M. Holmes" will turn out to be Mycroft, reinterpreted as father rather than big brother. The other possibility just seems a little too soap-opera-ish.
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0715953/ Why waste Roger Rees as a "friend" never to be seen again when Sherlock doesn't have friends? 1. Moriarty. 2. Mycroft 3. Daddy pretending he's not daddy. Besides. Right now, I'm leaning towards the fact that Sherlock is his own father. It's his house, his money, he hired Joan, and he fired Joan.
Did I miss an episode? when did Joan get fired? Last communication I saw with Holme's father, she was extending her stay.
SEconds later, the text back was "no thank you. Final check is in the mail". Then she started lying to Holmes. Meanwhile Joan's therapist is telling her that she's crazy to try and survive in New York without a current revenue stream. It's really a question of why she wants to stay. Is she a mystery junkie? Is she concerned about Holmes? Is she in love with him?
Clearly it's the first two. The show has laid it on quite thickly that she's drawn to the investigations, that she enjoys them more than her sober companion work. Holmes sees that in her, and Sherlock Holmes is not a man whose deductions about other people's motives should be dismissed. And she's clearly concerned with his well-being after what happened with Moran. Conversely, there's been absolutely no hint of any romantic interest between Holmes and Watson.
Her face doesn't move. I want to say inscrutable, but that's borderline racist. Bad surgery or some sort of nerve damage? We could just be not acutely observant enough to identify Lucy's emotions trying to surface through her plastic android shell? (No, I don't think she's in love with him.)
I think the most recent episode with Holmes' drug dealer makes the "Holmes' father doesn't exist and is actually Holmes himself" theory, which I myself held for a long time, not possible -- Holmes called his father and got the 2.2 million that Rhys needed to pay off the Dominican cartel. If Holmes had the money himself, he wouldn't have needed to make that phone call.
The call was just for show? A possibility. If you're going to have a cover story you have to make it look good.
I considered that possibility, but it doesn't fit the way the scene is staged. There's no need for a cover story if Holmes is going to go and sit on a park bench down a quiet street far from home away from Watson's prying eyes to place his call. I also considered that "my father" was a code word that Holmes uses to access his resources. I can't dismiss this one as easily.