Discussion in 'TV & Media' started by truespock, Nov 5, 2012.
^I'd read your post, but I think your username is all wrong for this thread.
REALLY?! You're using my username as an excuse for not bothering to read the original post?! And yet you feel compelled to TELL me about it?!
Ladies and gentlemen, I rest my case!
EDIT: Beat me to it, Zombie Seeker!
Better topic: How cool would it be if Sherlock from Sherlock met up with Sherlock from Elementary? It could be like when Ricky Gervais showed up on The Office and met Michael Scott, except you know, with a CSI-procedural feel to it all. Lucy Liu could flirt with Cumberbatch, and you could have all the tropes of a true crossover! It'd be awesome!
I rest my case!
That would be a perfectly valid story angle to take with Holmes and Watson, and would be interesting and fun to see. BBC's Sherlock has used the intimation of a relationship, though only for humor, but taking it to an actual one would be an entertaining view of their camaraderie.
You know, there was a discussion on this very board about a year or so ago where it was suggested Kirk might actually be bisexual. I recall positing in that thread that it might be a fun, interesting exercise to re-watch the entire original series and films and just assume Kirk is in fact bisexual, to see how it affects things.
Surprisingly (for a board dedicated to discussing so foward-thinking a television show) the idea was summarily slapped down.
I still think it would be interesting and would lead to interesting discussion as well.
It would be rather implausible for there to be two brilliant, addiction-prone consulting detectives named Sherlock Holmes growing up and establishing their careers in England simultaneously, let alone for both of them to end up cohabiting with a physician named Jo_n Watson. So I can't buy the shows sharing a reality. For such a thing to be done, it would have to be an "imaginary story," as DC Comics would call it.
Hey, you know what would be wild? Have Miller and Cumberbatch repeat what they did with Frankenstein. Do a few episodes of both shows where they switch roles -- Miller starring in Sherlock, playing Moffat's "sociopath" version of the character, and Cumberbatch starring in Elementary, playing this softer, recovering-addict version. Both characters written exactly as they usually are on their respective shows, the other characters treating them as exactly the same people, just the actors playing each other's parts like reciprocal understudies. It'd be an interesting acting exercise, though of course it would drive both fanbases mad.
I was not being serious there. But you're absolutely right.
That would be cool!
I'm afraid to say this, but she has a point.
I'm not sure of the whole demographic groups that CBS go for, but if you look at it in an advertising sense: If you think an advert is the dogs bollocks and you really like the product from the advert, it's more than likely aimed at your demographic. If on the other hand, you think it's utter shite, and the product is pointless, it's more the likely that it's not being aimed at you demographic.
It's not a hard and fast rule, but more often than not, what I described is the case.
Oh and I've not watched any Elementary yet, I think it's on some Sky channel, but just not felt the urge to watch it even though I enjoy CSI and NCIS.
Several perfectly valid counter-points have been made here, between the shitstorms of baseless sneering and mockery, that is. I am quite well aware that this show was never intended for a serious Holmes purist like myself, and I knew that before I watched it. My simple objection to it's existence is that an iconic character like Holmes has been co-opted for yet another banal CBS procedural clone. Make all of the stale and derivative pablum that you want to, network boys--everybody else here seems to thrive on it!--but just don't try to pretend that it's Sherlock Holmes...'cause it categorically, indisputably, and definitely AIN'T!!
[Teal'c] Indeed... [/Teal'c]
I think you just made your first decent point in this thread. Unfortunately, it wasn't exactly what you were hoping for. Take your statement at face value, consider your insults, and then add in the fact that you've ALREADY been intimidated into being run off the board once (admittedly), and, well...
Character's name is.. what, exactly?
Oh, right... Sherlock Holmes. You may not agree with the interpretation, but your statement is absurd, and since you painted it in absolutes, it's also patently false. It's not even like House, M.D., where the character IS Sherlock Holmes, but they called him something else in that rendition. This one is straight-up Sherlock...
Oh, question truespock. I like the vulcan in your avatar with the fabio hair. Is he supposed to be bi-sexual?
Who died and named you the executor of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's estate, cause i'm pretty sure his heirs are the only ones with insight into the definitive portrayal of Holmes, and i don't see them storming the gates of the tiffany network.
So.... don't... fucking... watch... it.
Yeah, it isn't Sherlock Holmes. But it is quite entertaining.
Sure it is. You're just wrong.
Here are a few words about 'Elementary' - Eh. Don't float my boat. Don't watch it.
SHAZAM!! And a BAM!! to boot
Separate names with a comma.