Elementary "While You Were Sleeping" Review: Studio Notes on Sherlock

Elementary S01E02: "While You Were Sleeping"

Are you READY for some FOOTBAAAALLL??!?!?! Is an inappropriate way to begin this post yet sort of encapsulates the "game day" tone of sitting down for the second episode of a series. The second episode of a new show reflects all the tweaks, adjustments, recasts and "forever" sets that will be in place for the rest of the season after the pilot was intially screened for the network. Not to mention souped-up, dramatic, artsy-for-the-sake-of-fartsy credits!

So my dears, I thought it would be fun to try and deduce what notes Elementary got coming out of the pilot for this second episode/rest of the season using my own fine sense of observation (it's not that fine, I'm continually finding Oreos under my keyboard that are months old). And so with no further ado, here's my case file of "Notes CBS Probably Gave to Elementary!"

1. "We love the addict thing. Can you do more with that?"

They went hard to the hole with the Sherlock addiction in this series. We learned he had concealed from the police chief he consults for that he was a recovering addict (considering he works for free I'd guess it wouldn't be a deal breaker) and he instantly recognized a meth head CEO because of his frenetic eye blinking and pulled him aside to break it down junkie-to-junkie to get some key information on the case.

Holmes also got hit with his most important clue while engaging in an AA meeting. Clearly the torments of abstaining from horse or smack or twinkle-veins or whatever the kids are calling it these days has but SHARPENED his crime-solving abilities, an original enough take but WE GET IT, GUYS. Please don't just solve every crime by finding the addict involved and threatening them with exposure?

2. "Have Sherlock and Watson's relationship be the major arc of the series."

Sherlock put a five-week clock on Watson last night, signaling a possible mid-season finale all about Sherlock convincing Watson to stay on as his legit valet versus his sober buddy. As this is an origins story, it's fair enough that their relationship would be a major arc and to arc it has to start low so it can go somewhere. HOWEVER… part of the magic of the Sherlock/Watson dynamic is that they are two people who "click." Watson is kind of dumb in the original stories and his medium-smart brain struggling to solve stuff provides a wall for Sherlock to bounce off of, and his doctor skills provide a factual basis for deduction. While TV/Lucy Liu Watson did get a little more engaged in providing medical clues this episode (she did make a coma victim slap herself)...

I actually really hated how much they talked about their relationship. His violin! Her ex-boyfriends! Companionship! Let's be friends! No we will never be friends! I don't know, I like the idea that they come together and immediately are a fit, that Watson, whatever his/her lack of deduction, can read and appreciate Holmes in a way no one else can. I hope they get there sooner rather than later because the relationship talk is t.e.d.i.o.u.s.

3. "Lose the bees. Didn't Sherlock play a violin?"

The episode ending with the dulcet tones of a violin was a detail I very much enjoyed (I guess he had two violins, since he torched the other one in a small hobo fire to make a point to Watson about relationships) because I love violin music and it's such an important part of Sherlock as a character. I also appreciated that no honey dripped out of the walls and the bees were totally missing from this episode (Holmes elected to spend prime bee-keeping time picking a bunch of rusty old locks instead).

I would guess we won't see the bees again, both because it's an unnecessary amount of bother and trauma to put the art department and set dressers through, and because it made no effing sense. (New York City bee honey probably tastes like exhaust mixed with pigeon sh-t) If they come back, I owe three readers a coke.

4. "Can you make the mysteries a little more complicated? This is Sherlock Holmes here, not Jessica Fletcher."

My main complaint with last week's mystery was that Watson basically solved it. Watson was again, this week, picking up clues at the crime scene that similarly pissed me off (sorry, but I like Watson more as a deductive foil for Holmes) but then as the mystery unfolded I was cackling like a middle school bully. TWIN SWITCH CRIME: The lowest of the low. AND a woman PUTTING HERSELF IN A MEDICALLY INDUCED COMA as an alibi!!! She just got high and napped for a week, okay. The premiere's mystery was a little too simple and the murderer was the victim's husband,the first/only suspect we met. For all the fancy footwork of imaginary woman/woman in coma/woman has twin it was very obvious from the outset what was going to happen. The only tension was hoping I would be wrong, because a woman getting high all day in a coma and then going out and shooting people is um RIDICULOUS.

And ridiculous though it was, we had no chance to solve it because the key physical evidence was a pale band of flesh on the doctor's hand that I think we only saw in flashback. Part of the fun of a Conan Doyle Sherlock story is you're presented with the same clues as Sherlock so you feel (probably mistakenly) that you have a fighting chance of solving the crime before he does. But there's too few clues to reason through anything in Elementary, deduction is downgraded to wild guesses, and even that is not what they want. They want you to just sit back and be impressed by the twists and turns, but they did not impress-a me much.

That's actually probably my biggest note to procedurals in general, there's usually only time to present two suspects for a case, one of which quickly becomes improbable by being too obviously guilty. Generally, you pick the person who obviously could NOT have committed the crime and BAM, you're done. You know how they could manage their time and flesh out the mystery more? CUT OUT all the Watson and Sherlock bickering & being touchy feely with their feelings hoo-ha. Hopefully once Watson and Sherlock become more of a sure thing they'll up the ante on these mysteries and make them more compelling, not through providing improbable killers but by providing misdirecting clues.

QUESTIONS…

…What key differences did you notice between this second episode and the pilot?

…Were you baffled/furious at how the mystery went down?

…Did you get a genuine chill though when Sherlock was like "Why do you think she was still in a coma? Who did she have left to kill?"

…Junkie vibes: overpowering the Sherlock character or fueling him?

…Put "you owe me a coke" in your comment if you think the bees are coming back & if they do I'll get the first three such commenters a coke.

Comments (90)
Submit
Sort: Latest | Popular
I had a somewhat different opinion of the episode (and the prequel, it would seem) than the reviewer, and that's fine - always room for differing opinions. But there is one point she made that is just plain factually wrong - she claims that in Conan Doyle's works the fun is that you're presented with all the same evidence as Sherlock, and that just plain isn't true. I've read through all the original stories, and there are innumerable times (if I had to estimate, I'd say half, but it could be more or less than that) when Holmes has a key piece of evidence that the audience is not privy to, and that clue isn't revealed until he gives his spiel about how he solved the case. So on that level, Elementary is being very true to the source material.
1
Reply
Flag
I knew who was the killer when she was introduced for the first time. There was no surprise, I am getting tired of this "mystery" shows. The Elementary is just another crime show, same as Mentalist or even Rizzoli and Isle. Predictable and not intriguing. "Sherlock", "Luther" are great example of crime shows. If they hadn't screw "The Killing" It would be a perfect example of crime show.
Reply
Flag
I'm sorry - I just can't stop comparing this to BBC's Sherlock, which is so ridiculously brilliant that it sets the bar impossibly high for poor little Elementary.

All the Sherlock-Watson interaction you're looking for is PERFECTLY presented in the British show, the chemistry, the near-instant "click", Watson being impressed by Sherlock but not a bumbling fool or a supersleuth, just quietly competent etc.



Elementary so far suffers from a lot of teething problems, but I think I'm too spoiled to give it a proper chance even if it does sort them out. :/
Reply
Flag
You owe me a coke! Seems everything's all about the bees right now, so I'm betting they'll be back. At least to give a reason as to why they're gone.

As for the episode itself? Definitely on a lower rung than the pilot. I didn't care much at all for the role of the drugs in the episode, though hopefully they were just getting that out of their system and will tone it down come next week.

I did like at the end when he pointed out that coma girl was still doing her coma act - to bring in Person of Interest terms here, Yvette was bad code. I was told all through childhood that I was selfish because I was an only child. Well, I think this just proved that how many siblings you have is not at all related to how selfish one is.
Reply
Flag
i think you're correct about moriarty showing up. i get so use to the cable shows being only half a season i forgot we have 20+ eps per season. b/4 xmas? maybe he will show by then,he has to show at some point or some mention of him or it wouldn't be sherlock...i do like it so far...JLM is better than i expected. LL is carrying her own too.
Reply
Flag
I'm not feeling this one I'm afraid. It's too procedural, too boring. I'm looking at it and in my head I'm crying, "Bendict come back we need you!"
Reply
Flag
Anybody want to bet that the cause of Sherlock's London distress is NOT that he lost someone do to his failure to solve a case that will turn out to have been masterminded by Moriartry? Right now I have a feeling they won't even make it to Christmas without at least name dropping Holmes' nemesis. Keep an eye on the supporting cast; it's a classic place to hide him.
Reply
Flag
It's most likely something to do with Irene Adler.
Reply
Flag
I'm not convinced this Holmes adaption is going to be a success. I'll give the show a couple more viewings but I'm not feeling it. There's no real chemistry between Liu and Miller, and it's taking too long to get there. The Watson/Holmes dynamic is what makes the story tick, coupled with great sleuthing. This show has neither.
Reply
Flag
- The new detective. At least with this guy (which was also a nice way to add a tad more diversity into the show) he has that bit of skepticism and reluctance to fully embrace Sherlock that is sort of needed. Someone has to take Holmes to task on cases. Also, I believe they had Miller speaking slower. I think with the intention of making him easier to follow for those who are fast of the quick pace dialogue or those who have trouble following the British accent.

- Numb would be more like it. I wasn't moved much by the case even though I like watching the show well enough. It didn't serve the purpose of keeping me intrigued or even invested in figuring out whodunnit.

- Not really.

- Fueling. As long as they walk a fine line on that one.



I do agree with the Watson and Holmes relationship thing. I'm one of the people in full support of Lucy Liu playing Watson, but yeah. I think two problems come up with all the friendship talk. One, it further fuels those who are against Watson being a woman. Because it's no secret that when guys and chicks are friends they tend to talk about feelings and emotions and all that other crap that guys don't talk about with other guys. In moderation it's realistic...if done too much it's overkill. I don't want this to be overkill. And two, it undermines the intelligence of the audience. The best relationships of any kind just come naturally without discussing it. Having two characters discuss the possibility of becoming friends in the middle of solving crimes or whatever is pardon the pun, elementary and juvenile. It reminds me of when five year old kids on the playground walk up to each other and say "Hey you...wanna be my friend?" and even that has an admirable bluntness and straight to the point thing then let's dive into each other's secrets and talk about our inner thoughts. They don't have to tell us that they have chemistry...the characters themselves don't have to talk about forging a chemistry with one another, it just needs to happen subtly and organically.

More+
Reply
Flag
I watched today the pilot and ep #2... and think that the show needs more "umph"... I like Mr. Miller I think he is really invested in the character... but it feels more like House. So right now it is something between House and Sherlock... but it really needs to find a voice.



Although I think casting a woman as Watson is an interesting twist (casting Katee Sackhoff as 'Starbuck' was sheer genius) I am still not convinced Lucy Liu was the best choice... or maybe I don't like the way her character is written?



Now regarding Watson as a character, I like the way he is written in Sherlock (BBC) not dumb but as an honest, straight forward, decent person who happens to befriend and click with this genius...



Will give the show a couple more episodes... to make a final decision.
Reply
Flag
I enjoyed it immensely. I had the wrong twin using the doctor in the murder plot, chemical coma never even occurred to me, so I thought it was a nice twist.

Detective Bell will clearly be the foil for Holmes' ideas, Cpt Gregson's personal history with Holmes has made him a believer, and when they finally explain that, I am hoping it is because Sherlock has done something to make the captain doubt him, not simply something that seems shifty, something actually shifty. He is an addict, addicts are shifty.

In the long run, Watson doesn't need to be in the same class as holmes, but until watching an assertive top-flight surgeon instantly recognize Holmes as her brilliant superior wouldn't be any fun to watch. And it clearly wasn't simply a slip of a scalpel that cost her patient his life, perhaps she is hiding her own addictions by staying close to addicts; but no matter what got her to this point, she will still have the personal drive of a driven professional. This is the start of the relationship and what will turn out to be a long term job for the former surgeon, not just a temp gig while she gets back on her feet. I want to see tension. Just not so much crime solving yet. She is smart, but not a detective.

And finally, the part where he asks the sister why her twin was still in the coma after the other siblings where dead, I DID get a chill. If the show can find a way to keep that tone through out every episode, I will become an addict.
More+
Reply
Flag
LOL at everyone pretending to have read any of the original works. Watson is on the same level of intellegence as everyone else in the stories and above most, including all the detectives, outside of the two stories with Moriarty and the two or three with Mycroft. All but 4 of the hundred or so stories are solved instantly off of a couple of clues in a matter of minutes. Finally, Sherlock is brilliant at what he does, but incompetent in a number of fields.
Reply
Flag
"When I was your age, television was called books" I don't know how old you are, but people a mere couple decades ago used to read, and Sherlock Holmes was one of those things everyone read. For me, that age was somewhere around twelve, and I never reread them, so when I read a comment on here that says they read them but don't remember the fine details, that rings true to me. I assume that person is probably over 30 and didn't have the Internet to distract them or 500 cable channels. An interesting phenomenon is that people who lie tend to think other people lie, and people who tell the truth tend to think other people tell the truth. You might want to take a good hard look at your life and how you're living it.
Reply
Flag
I so agree on the relationship talk excess - by all means writers show it but don't verbalise (that's just lazy writing) and focus on action



I prefer the bees to the blooming violin - so cliched to hear it in the background... enough already, bees rule!



The biggest problem I see so far in Elementary is that there are no interesting / compelling characters beyond Holmes and Watson - They need one or more support characters Monroe (Grimm) or a Kalinda (Good Wife). Perhaps they are on their way in the shape of a Moriarty, Holmes senior or something but for now that's kind of weak
Reply
Flag
Too much effing "our relationship" crap.

I liked the part of him getting the clue during the ex-junkie meeting, but other than that it was just weird.

YES! That part was cool.

I am used to the Sherlock Holmes that was a junkie anyway so this is actually true to the character to me (in a modernized way).

You do not owe me a coke, but beekeeping in NYC is a big deal. It was outlawed for awhile,but since the honeybee population is crashing and enough people raised hell, it is legal again. Whether or not the writers care is another story.
1
Reply
Flag
Sherlock wasn't a junkie, he just used cocaine casually like people do today with alcohol.
Reply
Flag
Nobody uses cocaine casually...for long. Nobody.
Reply
Flag
Cocaine used to be added to drinks or to be smoked (coke leaves) for it estimulant properties. So yeah, it was casually.
Reply
Flag
"I would guess we won't see the bees again... because it made no effing sense."



Though it may not make sense to keep bees in New York, in "His Final Bow", Arthur Conan Doyle reveals that Holmes has been keeping and studying bees in his retirement, and has published a book titled "Practical Handbook of Bee Culture." The bees in the premiere were reference to that, especially as he mentioned the book he was writing about them.
Reply
Flag
You owe me a coke. I have no idea whether I am within the first 3 commenters to post such, but just in case, thought I would throw it in. A free coke is always welcome, after all. Plus I would not be surprised to see the bees come back. He probably admires their single-mindedness. And who doesn't want unlimited, fresh, free honey?



I liked this episode much more than the pilot. It moved faster. The case was much more interesting than the previous one (which almost seemed irrelevant in the first episode).



Of course Holmes and Watson won't click as easily in this as in the books or the BBC version. This is a season of hour-long episodes that need to be filled up some how, and conflict between Holmes and Watson works. Plus, Watson is a woman now. I agree that women and men can be bros, but it's a different kind of relationship. And Watson is hardly contributing to the cases. The pilot revelation was a reach for Watson, yes, but this episode corrected that.



THERE'S STILL NO HUMOR. It's strange because the tone is not too dark at all, but there aren't any jokes or comedic situations.
More+
Reply
Flag
I did find that there was some humor in this episode. I know him holding the coffee cup out when she said it was ready got a laugh out of me (though I will admit that it felt like something they lifted directly out of Sherlock). I thought him playing the world's smallest violin was rather cute as well. Really depends on your type of humor. I'm not a laugh-out-loud kinda person. I can go for some slapstick, but dry humor's what usually gets me.
Reply
Flag
I really like the characters, but this episode was much too predictable. Most people probably figure out coma girl is pulling a fake early on. Holmes should be smarter than us, so he should as well. The whole third heir act was over the top fake, anyone in the room should have seen through that.



But I will stick around and see if the next episode is better.
Reply
Flag
I kiiiiiind of liked it. I kind of found it boring. It's a procedural, so I'll probably never be able to get REALLY into it, but as far as procedurals go, Elementary has been okay so far. It might just be because the characters are still relatively new, in which case, I'll likely drop the show after this first season. I don't get bored of procedurals as quick as many, but it is almost inevitable.
Reply
Flag
Never read any of the books, nor have I seen the BBC show or even the recent films. But am glad Jonny Lee Miller is back on TV - everything I've seen so far I've liked even if reminds me too much of House and Bones.
Reply
Flag
After watching last weeks episode I said I would give the show 5 episodes to impress, but I'm not sure I can last that long. This was just as bad as the first, it's just not smart enough!

Also I agree they spent too much time talking about a relationship. One the reasons people keep coming back to Sherlock Holmes in all the versions out there is, yes, the friendship between Watson and Holmes, however because they have always been 2 men they don't talk about the friendship, it just exists unmentioned. Throwing a woman in as Watson does open that door because women talk about friendship and relationships more, but shoving it down our throats doesn't make it more palliative.
Reply
Flag
You Owe Me a Coke.



Of course those bees will come back. At some point, you'll see sherlock putting honey in his coffee, and reference the bees, or they'll somehow lend a hand in solving a case.. I'm not sure when, but I'm positive they'll make at least one more appearance this season.
Reply
Flag
I actually like this show. It's not ground breaking or anything, but it is fun to watch. I also like the fact Sherlock has this slightly childish tit for tat nature. Im not sure why, but I found the scene where he burns the violin really entertaining.

Also, if you think about it, shows like this generally will have one/two/a few scenes where the main couple bicker about something but why you notice it more in Elementary and less in Sherlock is Sherlock is twice as long. Even if both shows had the same amount of air time devoted to bickering it would still be less in comparison to the rest of the episode.

Finally, here's the thing a picture is worth a thousand words. Thanks to the INTERWEB and TV/Movies we have seen a lot of stories. I mean no matter how clever a show is trying to be you can generally figure out what will happen because chances are you have seen it before a few times in other shows. But way back when, when people had books a lot of these mysteries were probably a lot harder to solve.
Reply
Flag
I have to admit, I find his lack of control and doing things we wish we could do but don't/won't/can't, kind of cathartic.
Reply
Flag
I wander if anyone could answer this. Are any of the Elementary episodes based on AC Doyle stories or are they fully made up in the Elementary's writing room.
Reply
Flag
They are meant to be completely original products of the show. This was going to be one of the ways they distinguished themselves from the british version which is taking the original stories and tweaking them a bit (see A Study is Scarlet vs A Study in Pink or A Scandal in Bulgaria vs A Scandal in Belgravia). Elementary on the other hand is all original stories and mysteries.
Reply
Flag
And those were my 2 favorite Sherlock eps. Scandal and Study. Fell asleep to Scandal again last night.
Reply
Flag
Haven't seen the BBC show, but A Study in Scarlet was far and away the worst Holmes story. Doyle just didn't know what he was doing yet. Was half of the episode about evil Mormons?
Reply
Flag
BBC show is great --> you are missing a lot! Watch it so you can compare!
Flag
i always hated watson for being dumb... it makes no sense for a smart man to be best friends with a less smart one... especially someone like Sherlock. So if this Watson ends up being dumbed down i`ll quit watching (i kind of like her being able to give some input with the cases).



the cases on the other hand really seem a little simple for Sherlock`s level... maybe if they take 2 or 3 episodes to solve a case? it might give them the time to make them more complex



Reply
Flag
Have you seen whitechapel? I kind of wish they would take their cue from them. In the first two series they took the full season to solve a mystery where as in the last series they broke it up by having two episodes encompass the mystery. Now I dont think sherlock should go all "the killing" out on us and suck the life out of me but it would be nice to see a little more sleuthing. But for all its flaws, I like the new detective and I really like the chilling nature of Jonny lee millers performance with that last line. I mean as much as I could predict the other stuff... that last line, that was oof. Also, the song they played at the end of the episode, Bloodlines by John Mathe? if elementary continues to bring new music such as that in to the limelight, I'm okay with that.
Reply
Flag
I love Whitechapel; Rupert Penry-Jones is the best! Why'd you have to bring that up? Now I'm going to be thinking about missing Sherlock AND Whitechapel while I watch drivel like Elementary.
Reply
Flag
#ReviewSherlock

I say we push TV.com into reviewing the oh so few episodes/mini-movies of BBC's incomparably ingenious Sherlock. It certainly would inspire a higher level of intellectual discourse than the (as of yet) woefully inadequate Elementary.

Steven Moffat (the executive producer of Sherlock) is targeting the Fall of 2013 as a return date (I know! it's been so long already!), so TV.com has some time.
Reply
Flag
This! So. Very. Much.

I usually almost never comment, but I just had to chime in because I've been thinking the same thing!

I am a huge lurker around here and love reading all the reviews and the (often very insightful) comments and ensuing discussions (there are some great commenters on here!). I also really love Sherlock (I won't go into that, because I probably wouldn't stop rambling), and a lot of other readers do too, so I think it would be a great idea if TV.com would review it! It's only 6 episodes, (ok, so they're movie-length, it's still not THAT much) and they've done these kind of 'belated' reviews before (Price's Veronica Mars articles come to mind)...

Anyway, I just think it would be great if one of our lovely TV.com writers would take on this task, it would be fun to read and discuss with you guys and it would certainly help us tide over this excruciatingly long wait until series 3 (such torture!).

Reply
Flag
Thanks! We should bring this up on every Elementary review until someone from TV.com takes notice.

And I wish you'd comment more. I seem to always like what you write. :)
Reply
Flag
Yes! It would be like, our mission! Our mission to get TV.com SHERlocked! (Yes, I know, that just completely made me sound like a 12 year old fangirl...)

In all seriousness, your #ReviewSherlock already has 20 thumbs up (Thumbs!), also, quite a few other comments keep mentioning Sherlock, and the TV.com writers are far from oblivious to their commenters (as far as I know most of them read all the comments they get), surely someone must've taken notice already? But, until they give in to our demand, let us fill the Elementary comments section with Sherlock talk!

And thanks, that is very nice of you :) I will try to comment more often, but I really can't make any promises... (fall-season overload! and I just really have the worst self-discipline ever... )
Reply
Flag
Continues, THIS!
Reply
Flag
Whilst i am glad that this is not a rip off of the absolutely fab BBC Sherlock with about the only similarity being that it is set in the modern day. I am thouroughly disapointed at the level and complexity of the cases and the fact that as was pointed out in the artical in the source text the rerader is presented with all the evidence when sherlock comes across it thus giving us a chance of deducing before the outcome before Sherlock (allways unlikely but still possible). I would never be happy with a U.S. procedural crime drama in the guise of Sherlock Holmes. I want more complexity an uneasiness about the our main protagonists indulgences (that a recovering status does not provide). I like the idea and conept but to keep me watching it has to be MORE. BBC's Sherlock runs rings around this show and any Holmes fan will be turning off in droves pretty soon if they don't change it up drastically.
Reply
Flag
I've given up hope for this show to ever be about Holmes being brilliant or use the science of deduction properly. He just seems to be throwing random things on to the wall and hoping something sticks.

The best part of this episode was the opening title. The rest was so boring, predictable and mundane! In the first episode, I liked Watson, tolerated Holmes. Here I hated them both, hated the constant talk of friendship, relationships and all that crap! They should just click as time passes by and shouldn't shove it into our faces that this is how it should be. The writing is atrocious.

Two more episodes for the show to impress me, but I'm not counting on it.
Reply
Flag
I totally agree about the mystery and the lame attempt to make us think it was the fraternal twin. Once you show a woman in a coma who it can't possibly be, you know it has to be her. I'm pretty sure it's one of the Laws of Bad Network Procedurals. As far as I'm concerned the title of this episode is extremely appropriate: While I was sleeping...a bunch of boring shit happened on Elementary b/c I fell asleep after the first 5 minutes.
Reply
Flag
I just don't like the lead female role, I don't think she can act and I don't like the way she's written into the story thus far. A relationship is something to work for but shouldn't be the crux of the series.
Reply
Flag
Like I said last week, this is the first thing I have ever seen her in and this will probably be the last. Really don't get the hype. She is merely adequate.

Of all the women they could have chosen, this casting will remain a mystery to me.
Reply
Flag
I totally agree, I've never liked her acting. She often seems to be the weak factor in the series and films she's been in.
Reply
Flag
Thank you! Some people complain about Keanu Reeves acting being dull, same with Lucy Lu IMO. To be fair, I probably haven't seen everything she's done (but don't care to either).
Reply
Flag
Finally! Someone else who hates Lucy Liu's acting. I love you for this comment.
Reply
Flag
Kinda done with this show after 5 mins into the absurdity of its 2nd episode intro and switched to Point Of Interest for some much needed quality and relief. Feel free once again TVcom to delete this negative review like you did both of mine b4 for the the 1st episode. Sure would rack up the ratings- Not! Zzz.
Reply
Flag
Are you sure you comment got deleted? Sometimes the system glitches and sometimes they get buried at the end.



Oh - I think you get a nasty gram in your personal messages when they delete anything you've posted. Ask me how I know.
Reply
Flag
Don't be daft. They've never deleted comments for being negative. Offensive, sure. Spam, yes. Negative? They'd be doing nothing else all day long. Most of the comments would be gone, including every one of mine ever.
Reply
Flag
Wouldn't have had mentioned mine and some other negative posts were indeed deleted for the 1st review unless absolutely SURE. I even had a print screen of my 2 posts but could not locate them after I revisited the same page. Being the first few to post the reviews, I was pretty stunned on how LOST can my reviews be inside the page when I also noticed some posts which I agreed with also were missing. And no, I post comments, not vulgar nor offensive. Duh! It's not a major issue but kinda made me wonder the motivation for the occurrence.
Reply
Flag
Sometimes its hard to recognize what is offensive to others. I remember one post I had removed. Someone had said something about how hitting women was bad, and I pointed out how that was sexist, and that if society allows hitting anyone, it should allow hitting everyone. Whoever the hate-speech monitor of that day was did not seem to understand that my point was that abuse is abuse and to portray it as only bad when it is against women is sexist, and instead they perceived that I was promoting violence against women (I can only assume this person was a temp). So, I posted a comment that was about gender equality and it got removed as being hate speech against women. So that's one possibility, perhaps something in your posts was perceived as offensive when it wasn't meant to be.

Another possibility is that there was a database problem and a bunch of posts just got lost. Now, if you quickly decided that things were getting removed because they agreed with your point of view, the human mind has some funny traits that will go along with you. First, the human mind will create patterns when they aren't there. Second, confirmation bias will take the supporting evidence and discard the evidence that doesn't support your point of view. Or, the evidence and the patterns may be there and it's just coincidence. Perhaps there are other patterns there.

I've seen several years of evidence that that kind of thing just doesn't go on here, so until you have considerably more evidence than you do right now, I just don't believe it and you shouldn't either; you lack sufficient data to make that case.
More +
Reply
Flag
Geez, seems u mastered the useless pattern of beating a dead horse to a deeper death just to prove that zombies do indeed exist. Go ahead, have fun chasing your own tail. Gotta go, The Walking Dead reruns are on. Zzz !
Flag
Watson showed has clue with the Picture, plus we heard the lady in AAA with the doctor now that is only two, if I watched again I bet I could name more, saw plenty of clues, but besides that is way the chief calls Holmes to find the clues, Monk and Jane do the same thing, overall a great episode!!
Reply
Flag
That's my issue bkyle. This isn't Monk or The Mentalist. This is Sherlock Holmes. Yes, there were two clues there. But, as stated in the review, the key to the whole mystery was the wedding ring mark on the doctors finger, we didn't see that until the reveal. Or how about the drug addict private eye? His eyes were blinking and shifty, but they didn't show us that. Everything he deduces should be from things that WE see, not just some random dialogue. That's what makes Sherlock Holmes different from the 150 other procedurals that are on tv.
Reply
Flag
well as the viewer sometimes you have read between the lines!! sometimes you can guess right or wrong and besides if we can see every thing I mean every thing what's the point in watching the end it would be like hearing the punchline then the joke.
Reply
Flag
I agree on the wedding ring mark we had no chance of seeing that, but the private eye's blinking eyes were noticeable before Sherlock pulled him aside. If you watch it again you can see him blinking like crazy when they first walk into the room. I think he does it a second time before he's pulled aside, but I'm not 100% sure on that.
Reply
Flag
That's my issue bkyle. This isn't Monk or The Mentalist. This is Sherlock Holmes. Yes, there were two clues there. But, as stated in the review, the key to the whole mystery was the wedding ring mark on the doctors finger, we didn't see that until the reveal. Or how about the drug addict private eye? His eyes were blinking and shifty, but they didn't show us that. Everything he deduces should be from things that WE see, not just some random dialogue. That's what makes Sherlock Holmes different from the 150 other procedurals that are on tv.
Reply
Flag
Yeah, I agree that the one thing that bothers me most about this series is that they don't actually show many of the clues. Sherlock just discovers them on his own and then tells us about it. That's not a Sherlock Holmes mystery, that's just CSI with a british accent and a scarf. I want to see what Sherlock sees and try to work it out in my head as it goes along, thats the fun of Holmes.



Also, I didn't mind her in the pilot, but I hated Lucy Liu in this episode. Maybe it was just the bad relationshipy storyline, but much of her screen time irked me.
Reply
Flag
For some reason I really like this show, even though I can't get into other procedurals. I guess I'm really liking the characters.

Reply
Flag
I didn't notice anything different of note between the second episode and the pilot, except for the intro and NA meeting. I did think the way the mystery went down was lame. as you said too obvious from the get go, there weren't any other options, except that maybe the neighbor was lying which he had no reason to do. I thought she was still in a coma because it popping out of it the day after the killings stop probably isn't a great idea. I did think that the implication that the last sibling being targeted was a nice touch though. I didn't see any of the supposed junkie signs on the ceo that sherlock did. i'm thinking the actor didn't have any intention to portray himself that way and for whatever reason they just left it be. also meth addicts don't stand still whatsoever, they're far from inconspicuous. somehow i don't remember bee keeping from either episode. what you thought the honey would taste like sounded spot on though.
Reply
Flag
oh, and i found sherlock figuring out that the neighbor stole the armoire to be the most enjoyable scene of the show. and i'm really not thoroughly enjoying either sherlock or watson atm.
Reply
Flag
"a woman getting high all day in a coma and then going out and shooting people is um RIDICULOUS"



suspension of disbelief? I mean, if you break down shows like Supernatural, Last Resort, True Blood, Vampire Diaries, pick-a-drama-that's-currently-airing, just about all of them have some premise or concept that is completely ridiculous.



That said, I do think it was pretty obvious that the killer was in a medically induced coma as a means of having a solid alibi for the murders. Is that really a bad thing though? I mean, we don't hate other shows when they're trying to prove a particular person committed a specific crime, do we? I mean, do we want 20 different suspects for the sake of having suspects? The show isn't House--we can't have Watson suggest it was the doorman (Lupus) each week, and we just don't have enough time to eliminate a dozen suspects like the doctors eliminated conditions on show.



One thing that did bug me though... when Holmes was talking about being surprised by the lefty, he was correctly fixated on his right cheek, but when he went into the whole "this one, leathery from slaps; this one, baby's bottom," JLM gestured to the wrong cheeks. It made me twitch. :(
More+
Reply
Flag
The shows you mention are speculative fiction (people might argue Last Resort isn't, but its basically alternate history... of the very recent variety). Speculative fiction requires a completely different level of suspension of disbelief than plain old ordinary fiction (like mysteries). For your standard order procedural, which this is, there should be nothing preventing you from thinking this is going on in your world in your time. The burden is on the writers to make it believable, not on you to believe any nonsense they throw at you. You're being way too forgiving.
Reply
Flag
Oh, I'm sorry... I thought we were talking about a show where Sherlock Holmes is the principal character. Sherlock Holmes. Master swordsman. Martial artist. Prized fist fighter. Strong enough to straighten out a bent steel poker. Brilliant detective mind despite habitual cocaine and morphine use. Extensive knowledge of who knows how many different topics.



Seriously, if he'd been rich, he could've been Batman. You say I'm too forgiving, but I think you're not nearly forgiving enough.
Reply
Flag
You missed an addition to the cast. Detective Marcus was added in episode 2. I'm guessing one of the notes was to increase the racial diversity of the cast.
Reply
Flag
True, too bad they immediately made the new detective annoying and overly aggressive.
Reply
Flag
I can like this. If I view it as an above average CBS procedural. To tell the truth I would rather watch this than a Law and Order or a CSI any day of the week. Mostly because it is new. But if I look at it strictly in a Sherlock Holmes kind of way. It lacks. It lacks a lot. None of the plots are even remotely difficult and I mean at all. And the back and forth between Holmes and Watson seems more like Petulant child and petulant nanny more so than two highly intelligent people trying to work together and figure out a crime.



Questions.



One. I liked the intro credits. Second opening to Game of Thrones. I wish they would apply the detail to the cases.



No, my 7 year old nephew could have figured it out and he isn't that bright of a kid.



No, that was obvious as well.



What Junkie vibes? The way he acts indicates a form of mania perhaps stemming from being slightly bi polar or as the result of his obvious depression for whatever happened in London. Couple that with his obvious high IQ and he just is a genius with personality issues. Nothing about him really screams junkie. He might have an addiction, but a Junkie, not really.



The bees will be back. I don't drink soda. Scotch on the other hand.....
More+
Reply
Flag
Further proof that I don't like this series, if only because it's a Sherlock Holmes procedural, as opposed to a show "based on" Sherlock Holmes. (The Mentalist, House)

I figured that she was in a medically induced coma the moment they introduced her, and the moment Sherlock/Lucy Liu checked if she was in a real coma, I was 90% certain of it. Making the episode fairly boring to me.

I hate the female "Watson", the change is ruining the the character interaction, and worst of all, it's messing with the Holmes character too much for me to truly enjoy it.

I'm also starting to dread two things that'll obviously happen because I realized how generic this show is:

-"Will they or won't they?" going full gear with one of them (Lucy Liu) falling for the other

-Moriarty being introduced as a overarching villain, exactly like how The Mentalist has Red John.
Reply
Flag
I still haven't been able to get too into Elementary. I think this might be why:



http://brentalflossthecomic.com/?id=107
Reply
Flag
First, urban (often rooftop) beekeeping is totally a thing. Second, of course the bees are coming back. Luckily, I am a big boy and can buy my own coke.



I thought this was less awful than the pilot. The show earns another week. It may even reach a full four episode test. I can't really comment on anything else though because my expectations after the pilot were so very low, I'm no longer any kind of judge of whether anything was shit.
Reply
Flag
i think you missed the clues along the way, they were there...they let us know with the tittle, it was the one sleeping,it wasn't an idenical twin,shelock let us know how absurd the guy giving the wrong discription on purpose was,doc being used by girl for selfish reasons in aa story...the relationship. it will, should always have conflict. they will warm,but it should be extremly unconventional...ie...trying to get watson laid. was that just selfish? ofcourse she stays,but why? and he is listening in the aa mtgs,very important. that is how he brought it together...with her story. i agree that the murder mysteries need to be more clever for my taste. JLM acting is incrediable! LL is ok too.
Reply
Flag
Staff
I understand Watson's need for staying...she genuinely enjoys the sleuth work. Her gamely participating in messing around with a coma victim to see if the coma victim was alive showed a confidence in Sherlock's deductions and an enjoyment of pursuing his aims. So I think her reason for staying will be the thrill of putting her own sharp mind towards the cases, which I can accept.

Twin switch stuff always gets under my skin. Its the most obvious twist in a ""irreproachable alibi" case and it always reads as lazy writing to me. For a better solution to the same dilemma that skilfully avoids a twin switch I'd suggest Agatha Christie's "Lord Edgeware Dies"
Reply
Flag
I remember years ago on an episode of Jake and the Fatman, a twin story where they named the wrong twin at the end and I never watched that show again. This twin episode wasn't much better being so predictable an all but I do enjoy Holmes and Watson a bit here and hope it gets better. Two violins? This show has too much violins. The bees can whistle for all I care...
Reply
Flag
You owe me a coke. They'll bring back the bees and will even lead to a breakthrough in a case! BEEEES!
Reply
Flag
"You owe me a coke" THIRD!!! BTW I don't drink coke, but water's just fine! ;) and you're always the best LIly
Reply
Flag
"You owe me a coke". Second. :) I'm hoping the bees are a Chekhov's gun...and if we see a jar of honey, does that count?
Reply
Flag
Staff
Zzzzzgota be BEES!!! I will accept loose, flying bees in the house (10 or more), but no honey.
Reply
Flag
Okay, deal, but if Holmes or Watson mentions the bees or dripping or collected honey in the future, that has to count. In fact, what I'd really like to see is Watson take a piece of toast, go into the hallway and hold it out for fresh honey.
Reply
Flag
First of all, you owe me a coke!



I agree with Gislef in that the Sherlock Holmes series didn't always give you everything. I have in fact read all of them, and one of the issues I had with the series was specifically the withholding, or more likely the bad representation, of information that eventually led to Holmes solving the crime. All too often a story will introduce someone and have Holmes say at a later time that he had a particular mud on his boots which meant that he was in such and such a location. Other times, certain objects are badly described and turn out to be very out of place, unusual things (in one case it was artificial sand) that are sometimes the sole clues to finding out whodunit. So while I think the BBC Sherlock is so far the best at giving clues to the audience, I do think that Elementary does a better job of showing clues than the Sherlock series.



I actually thought that this week's mystery was pretty well executed. If it weren't for the fact that there were only two female suspects (I was hoping that it would turn out to be a man pretending to be a woman but alas no) it wouldn't have been obvious. What this show needs to do is take more of the Poirot approach and have a good four to five suspects in each episode. One tip I would give is have multiple suspects in the same scenes, and multiple scenes with each suspect.



As for the bees. Come on, they will at least have him eating the honey he makes, or have Watson wiping honey out of her hair, or have it come out in dialogue. But more importantly, we all know that rooftops are great places for moving, heart to heart conversations, and that's where he keeps his bees. The writers would also be silly to throw away such comic gold as a bee hive in New York City. So in my mind they kinda have to show his bees at least once more. So yeah Lily, I'm pleased to say you'll be owing me a coke soon
More+
Reply
Flag
I completely agree with point four. That's the only bigger problem I have with this show. Of course, it's not really a flaw as much as just an issue with the nature of the legend of Sherlock Holmes. I can completely live with a reinterpretation of the saga, minor changes in details and a modern approach to things that don't work in today's world. But there are a few constants that signify the story of Sherlock.

One of them is that Sherlock deals with complex cases. They are not regular detective stories with just a lot of foot work and questioning people. Central to the story is that Sherlock spends a lot of time thinking and noticing small clues. The problem with Elementary is that the 40-ish minute episodes do not give enough time to display this crucial side to Sherlock stories. The BBC series does this better by being essentially a mini series of Sherlock films. Those episodes have enough time to develop a complex plot as well as delve into the interactions between characters. During one episode of Elementary there can only be a few very quick flashes of Sherlock's genius. The technical equipment he uses speeds up the work, but one regular episode is still too short for a real Sherlock adventure. The nature of Holmes' investigations would in my mind require more time spent on deeper reflection and what he calls "deductive reasoning". The length of the episodes is not something Elementary can change, but maybe it could adapt and focus on cases that last longer than one episode. That might give time to explore the process of Sherlock's reasoning, which is pretty important to the story.

Also, we need nemeses. Several of them.

I like the Rube Goldberg machine in the opening credits, though. It makes the beginning pretty nifty.
More+
Reply
Flag
I was both surprised and pleased to see a "traditional" opening to a show in this day and age. I've gotten so tired of the "openings" that are only three to five seconds long. And who doesn't love a Rube Goldberg device?

Reply
Flag
The fact that he's a closet junkie undermines the show terribly. How are the police supposed to take a case to court when a tool in their primary investigatory arsenal could so easily be torn apart by a defense lawyer? They've overplayed this card, and it feels too much like House, not enough like Holmes - House could get away with it because his proof is living patients, the pathologist isn't going to take him to task for not providing more dead people.

There's a big misconception about Watson in the original stories that he's stupid. That incorrect framing is due in part to Holmes' vastly greater intelligence, as well as the series of ridiculous movies. Watson is a successful doctor and former military surgeon, he's just no Sherlock Holmes.

I will agree that they yammered about their relationship waaaaay too much, Watson's best fit with Holmes in the books is his ability to enjoy the quiet and the adventure and the life of Holmes from the get-go, that their personalities compliment each other - Watson had lost his way after recovering from jungle illness and was bumming around London, while Holmes didn't take his logic out of the lab until he had been spurred on by Watson's presence as his new flatmate. They didn't need to talk about their relationship, they simply fell into it quickly by actions.

The violin always seems overused to me, in the original stories it's in maybe 1/5th of 'em and he's not that good and he noodles on it when he gets stuck - it's just another quirk he has laying around the apartment even if it is a beloved Strat. The bees were something Holmes was fascinated with in the originals since very early and with him until the end (he retired and finally wrote that book about beekeeping in the last few stories), that felt like a new twist on screen Holmes so naturally "new means scary!" and they killed it in favor of more Basil Rathbone. Sadly, you won't owe me a coke because CBS ain't taking chances here with new ideas beyond "New York via backlots in LA! Watson's a gurl! Holmes is modern and stuff! People need to be constantly reminded that it's Sherlock Holmes so put in a bunch of obvious stuff from pop culture and toss out nuance that might frighten them! Now where's that new Porsche?"

I actually thought the mystery here was deduced by its characters in a Holmesian manner, but for the viewer it became obvious too quickly what was happening and fell into lazy TV territory. Once Holmes had eliminated the possible, whatever was left became the answer, it's just that he had to take a jump and a risk and suffer crappy flashbacks to get there.
More+
Reply
Flag
Staff
Wild guessing is fun in a way, as Sherlock's wild accusations sort of mirror our own wild accusations as we're watching (it's part of the pleasure of procedurals). But the narrative sleight of hand in this episode (rather literally with the missing ring) is far too easy an out for the show since we're left without the clue. I did, however, prefer this episode to the pilot. The mystery here actually feels a bit Holmesian compared to the pilot (a sort of complicated simplicity).



And I agree with more misdirection, but not with you on the less character interaction. The series just needs to be better blend the mystery and character interactions than it has thus far. If guessing the culprit is one part of the pleasure of the procedural, the other is watching the characters work to do it. Cases can be passable so long as there's chemistry between characters.



And "you owe me a coke." The bees showing up was an odd thing considering Holmes and his violin are a more comment association than Holmes and his beekeeping hobby (he did actually write a book on the subject).
Reply
Flag
I enjoyed the show very much, but your right I want to see harder cases. I also want to see a nemesis namely Moriarty as a genius serial killer or something.
Reply
Flag
I very much disagree with the call for Moriarty. Bringing in the supervillain in a mystery series/procedural is the equivalent of a sitcom family going on vacation to Hawaii. It's what the show does when it has run out of story and ideas. When we get bored with the week-to-week mystery, THEN it will be time to bring in a multi-episode villain.
Reply
Flag
Load More Comments

Like TV.com on Facebook

  • 8:00 pm
    500 Questions
    NEW
    ABC