Isn't that just a (cheap) American knock-off because of Sherlock's success on the BBC and some studio execs wanted in on said success?
Ohh, good lord, not even close. The shows are incredibly different from one another, even though they're both faithful to the source in their own way.
Elementary takes an approach to the characters and the adaptation that bears essentially no resemblance at all to
Sherlock's approach, and in many people's view, including mine, is notably better in a number of ways. Its approach to Moriarty in particular is extremely original and blows
Sherlock's awful cartoon-villain Moriarty completely out of the water. I had an essay on the subject published on
Locus Roundtable not long ago, though be warned it has spoilers:
The Problem with Sherlock in a Post-Elementary World
And
Elementary isn't cheap either. It's one of CBS's most prestigious shows and is a classy production, beautifully shot on location in New York City, and featuring a number of prominent actors such as Lucy Liu and Aidan Quinn as regulars and Roger Rees, Natalie Dormer, and Rhys Ifans as recurring guests.
CBS has had modern-day Sherlock Holmes series in development at least as far back as 2001. (I have the pilot script for the 2001 version of "Elementary," which is set in Malibu Beach, of all places.) Sherlock and its success showed them that the concept worked, and they pulled the trigger on something they had been wanting to do for some time.
Where it does get tricky is that CBS offered to buy the Sherlock format rights from Moffat. (Probably for the same reason that Disney bought the rights to Tim Powers' On Stranger Tides; even though the fourth Pirates film didn't have much to do with it, buying the rights pre-empted potential nuisance lawsuits.) Moffat said no. They went ahead and made the show they wanted to make anyway. And I think that a lot of Moffat's anger toward Elementary stems from his realization that he left free money on the table.
That's very interesting -- I didn't know that. When you say the 2001 version, do you mean Robert Doherty was pitching the series that far back, or do you mean it was a distinct modernized-Holmes premise from a different creator?
One thing I note in my essay is that for the first half-century of Holmes screen adaptations, it was routine to modernize Holmes and Watson and make them contemporaries of the audience; the only exceptions for 50 years were the first two Basil Rathbone films, which were made in 1939 yet set in the Victorian Era. Yet for some reason, everything after 1950 treated Holmes strictly as a period character; even those few projects that brought him into the present or the future all featured the Victorian Holmes being cryogenically frozen or time-warped or resurrected. I've found it quite strange that nobody tried approaching Holmes as a contemporary character until
Sherlock and
Elementary came along. So it's actually not surprising to learn that at least somebody was contemplating a contemporized Holmes as far back as 2001.