US version of Elementery

[Alan]

The pilot was interesting, but lacked the quirky whimsy of the UK
version.

Any bets on how long will it take for him to investigate and determine
that the patient Watson lost was in fact murdered? It just seems
inevitable.


--
Alan

[Harold Groot]

On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 14:55:29 -0500, Alan <ALANBI...@YAHOO.COM>
wrote:

>The pilot was interesting, but lacked the quirky whimsy of the UK
>version.

It seems to me that each new version of Holmes I see is deliberately
intended to be more annoying than the last one. (I have to wonder if
this is partly because of the success of House.) Since in general I
don't enjoy shows about annoying people, I am unlikely to watch this
beyond my standard 3-ep tryout.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Alan <ALANBI...@YAHOO.COM> wrote:

>The pilot was interesting, but lacked the quirky whimsy of the UK
>version.

Don't blame the UK for this show. It's not a version of Sherlock.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Alan <ALANBI...@YAHOO.COM> wrote in
news:4g8h6817b4okipicr...@4ax.com:

They might as well have put that in the title.

And Holmes' own drug conviction will turn out to have been a)
research in to something or other, and b) faked anyway.

--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

que...@infionline.net (Harold Groot) wrote in
news:5068aeea...@news.west.earthlink.net:

> On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 14:55:29 -0500, Alan
> <ALANBI...@YAHOO.COM> wrote:
>
>>The pilot was interesting, but lacked the quirky whimsy of the
>>UK version.
>
> It seems to me that each new version of Holmes I see is
> deliberately intended to be more annoying than the last one. (I
> have to wonder if this is partly because of the success of
> House.)

That, and the scruffy beard.

But House _was_ Sherlock Holmes fan fic, after all.

[Your Name]

Alan <ALANBI...@YAHOO.COM> wrote in
news:4g8h6817b4okipicr...@4ax.com:

> The pilot was interesting, but lacked the quirky whimsy of the
> UK version.
>
> Any bets on how long will it take for him to investigate and
> determine that the patient Watson lost was in fact murdered? It
> just seems inevitable.

"Him"?!? Wasn't the new American Sherlock Holmes mess meant to have a
female Sherlock? Or is that yet another version being made?

[David Johnston]

On 9/30/2012 1:55 PM, Alan wrote:
> The pilot was interesting, but lacked the quirky whimsy of the UK
> version.

There is no UK version of Elementary. There is a show called Sherlock,
but they owe nothing to each other.

[David Johnston]

On 10/1/2012 11:32 AM, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
> Alan <ALANBI...@YAHOO.COM> wrote in
> news:4g8h6817b4okipicr...@4ax.com:
>
>> The pilot was interesting, but lacked the quirky whimsy of the
>> UK version.
>>
>> Any bets on how long will it take for him to investigate and
>> determine that the patient Watson lost was in fact murdered? It
>> just seems inevitable.
>
> They might as well have put that in the title.
>
> And Holmes' own drug conviction will turn out to have been a)
> research in to something or other, and b) faked anyway.
>

No, given his issues, I believe his drug conviction was legitimate.

[David Johnston]

No. It has a female Watson.

[Harold Groot]

On Mon, 01 Oct 2012 10:32:56 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
<taus...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Alan <ALANBI...@YAHOO.COM> wrote in
>news:4g8h6817b4okipicr...@4ax.com:
>
>> The pilot was interesting, but lacked the quirky whimsy of the
>> UK version.

>> Any bets on how long will it take for him to investigate and
>> determine that the patient Watson lost was in fact murdered? It
>> just seems inevitable.

>They might as well have put that in the title.
>And Holmes' own drug conviction will turn out to have been a)
>research in to something or other, and b) faked anyway.

>Terry Austin


Why think that? If the original ACD version used cocaine, why
shouldn't the new version also be a user?

Granted, most of the ACD stories didn't mention it at all. (Of those
that did, it went from "three times a day" in The Sign of Four to
"occasional use" in Yellow Face.) And the ACD stories never showed
him as having his life turned upside down by an addiction to the drug
(which was not illegal back then). He just needed something to keep
his brain occupied. If there was a murder to solve (or indeed, any
interesting puzzle) he seemed to have no need of cocaine. But mundane
life was something he could not tolerate. Sherlock speaking to Watson
in The Sign Of Four (published in 1890):

"My mind," he said, "rebels at stagnation. Give me problems, give me
work, give me the most abstruse cryptogram, or the most intricate
analysis, and I am in my own proper atmosphere. I can dispense then
with artificial stimulants. But I abhor the dull routine of existence.
I crave for mental exaltation."

But it's only mentioned AT ALL in a half-dozen stories, and VERY
briefly when it is. It's a very SMALL part of his life - but it's
still a part.

A modern take (The 1974 Movie "The 7 Percent Solution") made it a much
bigger part of his life, and many people have run with that idea
since. There's nothing in the ACD stories to support THAT take on it -
but he WAS a user in the ACD stories.

http://www.who2.com/blog/2009/01/sherlock-holmes-was-not-really-a-cocaine-addict

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote in
news:k4dcle$lvh$2...@dont-email.me:

They may keep that story arc for season 2, but not longer.

As further supproting evidence, I would submit that they have done
a Battlestar Galactica on this:

Step 1: Find something you can "reimagine."
Step 2: Identify all of the dinstictive elements to it
Step 3: Make them the exact opposite
Step 4: Give half of the major characters tits.

The original Holmes *was* a cocaine addict, so to be opposite,
this Holmes isn't.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

que...@infionline.net (Harold Groot) wrote in

news:506adfb0...@news.west.earthlink.net:

> On Mon, 01 Oct 2012 10:32:56 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying
> Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Alan <ALANBI...@YAHOO.COM> wrote in
>>news:4g8h6817b4okipicr...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> The pilot was interesting, but lacked the quirky whimsy of the
>>> UK version.
>
>>> Any bets on how long will it take for him to investigate and
>>> determine that the patient Watson lost was in fact murdered?
>>> It just seems inevitable.
>
>>They might as well have put that in the title.
>>And Holmes' own drug conviction will turn out to have been a)
>>research in to something or other, and b) faked anyway.
>>Terry Austin
>
>
> Why think that? If the original ACD version used cocaine, why
> shouldn't the new version also be a user?

Battlestar Galactica formula: make everything the exact opposite
and give have the characters tits.

The original Holmes was a lot less unlikeable to the other
characters, and generally only pissed people off for a specific
reason. This one pisses people off because he's an asshole. The
original Holmes was never involved in any real legal troubles of
his own, this one is a convicted drug uers. The original Watson was
a doctor of good repute, this one is disgraced. The original
detective that Holmes worked with the most (Lastrade) was a bit of
a buffoon who hated and resented Holmes, this one is competent and
respects Holmes.

It's part of the formula, which made the Syphilis Channel a lot of
money, so Hollywood Rule #2 applies: The Formula Shall Not Be
Changed Until It Loses Money.

[Your Name]

In article <XnsA0E06267B70...@69.16.186.7>, Gutless Umbrella

Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> As further supproting evidence, I would submit that they have done
> a Battlestar Galactica on this:
>
> Step 1: Find something you can "reimagine."
> Step 2: Identify all of the dinstictive elements to it
> Step 3: Make them the exact opposite
> Step 4: Give half of the major characters tits.
>
> The original Holmes *was* a cocaine addict, so to be opposite,
> this Holmes isn't.

Ron Moore's in-name-only Battlestar Galactica wasn't the first to do that
(just one of the very few that lasted more than five seconds), but it
certainly is how the talentless hacks that make up most of Hollyweird
these days "work". :-(

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Your...@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote in
news:YourName-031...@203-118-187-85.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz:

> In article <XnsA0E06267B70...@69.16.186.7>, Gutless
> Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> As further supproting evidence, I would submit that they have
>> done a Battlestar Galactica on this:
>>
>> Step 1: Find something you can "reimagine."
>> Step 2: Identify all of the dinstictive elements to it
>> Step 3: Make them the exact opposite
>> Step 4: Give half of the major characters tits.
>>
>> The original Holmes *was* a cocaine addict, so to be opposite,
>> this Holmes isn't.
>
> Ron Moore's in-name-only Battlestar Galactica wasn't the first
> to do that (just one of the very few that lasted more than five
> seconds),

And one of the very few that didn't just suck.

> but it certainly is how the talentless hacks that make
> up most of Hollyweird these days "work". :-(
>

"These days"? What kind of dope are you smoking that you think it's
_ever_ been otherwise?

[Your Name]

In article <XnsA0E085DBDCC...@69.16.186.7>, Gutless Umbrella

Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Your...@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote in
> news:YourName-031...@203-118-187-85.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz:
> > In article <XnsA0E06267B70...@69.16.186.7>, Gutless
> > Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> As further supproting evidence, I would submit that they have
> >> done a Battlestar Galactica on this:
> >>
> >> Step 1: Find something you can "reimagine."
> >> Step 2: Identify all of the dinstictive elements to it
> >> Step 3: Make them the exact opposite
> >> Step 4: Give half of the major characters tits.
> >>
> >> The original Holmes *was* a cocaine addict, so to be opposite,
> >> this Holmes isn't.
> >
> > Ron Moore's in-name-only Battlestar Galactica wasn't the first
> > to do that (just one of the very few that lasted more than five
> > seconds),
>
> And one of the very few that didn't just suck.

The only reason it didn't (supposedly) suck is because it was *SO*
depressing that it never built up enough energy to even try to suck. :op

> > but it certainly is how the talentless hacks that make
> > up most of Hollyweird these days "work". :-(
> >
> "These days"? What kind of dope are you smoking that you think it's
> _ever_ been otherwise?

Re-using the same name is a relatively new fad.

Making idiotic changes and remaking older shows / movies is not new though.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Your...@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote in

news:YourName-031...@203-118-187-96.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz:

> In article <XnsA0E085DBDCC...@69.16.186.7>, Gutless
> Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Your...@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote in
>> news:YourName-031...@203-118-187-85.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz
>> :
>> > In article <XnsA0E06267B70...@69.16.186.7>,
>> > Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> As further supproting evidence, I would submit that they
>> >> have done a Battlestar Galactica on this:
>> >>
>> >> Step 1: Find something you can "reimagine."
>> >> Step 2: Identify all of the dinstictive elements to it
>> >> Step 3: Make them the exact opposite
>> >> Step 4: Give half of the major characters tits.
>> >>
>> >> The original Holmes *was* a cocaine addict, so to be
>> >> opposite, this Holmes isn't.
>> >
>> > Ron Moore's in-name-only Battlestar Galactica wasn't the
>> > first to do that (just one of the very few that lasted more
>> > than five seconds),
>>
>> And one of the very few that didn't just suck.
>
> The only reason it didn't (supposedly) suck is because it was
> *SO* depressing that it never built up enough energy to even try
> to suck. :op
>

But it was very good at depressing you. Plus, it lead to Edward
James Olmos leading a chant of "So say we all" at the United
Nations, and that's just cool.

>
>
>
>> > but it certainly is how the talentless hacks that make
>> > up most of Hollyweird these days "work". :-(
>> >
>> "These days"? What kind of dope are you smoking that you think
>> it's _ever_ been otherwise?
>
> Re-using the same name is a relatively new fad.

No, not really. Outright remakes have been around for decades.

>
> Making idiotic changes and remaking older shows / movies is not
> new though.
>

There hasn't been anything new since about the third movie made.
And movies were nothing new to storytelling, which goes back to
before humans evolved.

[Your Name]

In article <XnsA0E15A64F3F...@69.16.186.7>, Gutless Umbrella

Casting smileless Olmos is at least 40% of the reason the show was always
going to be depressing.

> >> > but it certainly is how the talentless hacks that make
> >> > up most of Hollyweird these days "work". :-(
> >> >
> >> "These days"? What kind of dope are you smoking that you think
> >> it's _ever_ been otherwise?
> >
> > Re-using the same name is a relatively new fad.
>
> No, not really. Outright remakes have been around for decades.
>
> > Making idiotic changes and remaking older shows / movies is not
> > new though.
> >
> There hasn't been anything new since about the third movie made.
> And movies were nothing new to storytelling, which goes back to
> before humans evolved.

As I said, remakes are not new, the fad of re-using the same name (to the
degree the lazy hacks in Hollyweird are doing now) is relatively new.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Your...@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote in

news:YourName-041...@203-118-187-245.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz:

He does do that well, yes.

>
>
>
>> >> > but it certainly is how the talentless hacks that make
>> >> > up most of Hollyweird these days "work". :-(
>> >> >
>> >> "These days"? What kind of dope are you smoking that you
>> >> think it's _ever_ been otherwise?
>> >
>> > Re-using the same name is a relatively new fad.
>>
>> No, not really. Outright remakes have been around for decades.
>>
>> > Making idiotic changes and remaking older shows / movies is
>> > not new though.
>> >
>> There hasn't been anything new since about the third movie
>> made. And movies were nothing new to storytelling, which goes
>> back to before humans evolved.
>
> As I said, remakes are not new, the fad of re-using the same
> name (to the degree the lazy hacks in Hollyweird are doing now)
> is relatively new.
>

Not really. There have been outright remkes of movies, as I said,
for decades. TV shows for less time, if only because TV has been
around for less time.

[David Barnett]

In article <YourName-0410120905120001@203-118-187-
245.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz>, Your...@YourISP.com says...

>
> Casting smileless Olmos is at least 40% of the reason the show was always
> going to be depressing.

<snip>

No smiling is depressing.
Too much smiling is irritating (Simon Baker, tho these
days he does not seem to smile so much).

Actors have to tread carefully!
--
David Barnett

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

David Barnett <dbar...@bigpond.net.au> wrote in
news:MPG.2ad776c77...@news.bigpond.com:

Note that Adama was suposed to be depressing, and Patrick Jayne is
supposed to be irritating. It's good to find the right actor for the
job.