Elementary

[Shorty]

kc and I were discussing this last night and I thought it warranted a thread!

Who's excited for American romanticized male/female Sherlock Holmes and Watson duo starting on 9/27?

qUJeWvpat-M

[Slothy]

I like Lucy Liu and perhaps this will scratch the itch which a lack of House has left me with this fall. I'll probably watch the first episode at least.

[Freya]

Honestly i'm irked that they stole the BBC idea after BBC told them no, but it still looks interesting enough for me to watch. I actually really want to see it.

[Slothy]

I've been meaning to watch Sherlock as well since you mention it Freya. I have to get to that soon, though I must say I found the idea of the BBC claiming some degree of ownership over the concept of a modern take on Sherlock Holmes quite laughable.

[Freya]

Well if you watch their sherlock you'll know why. It's top quality stuff. And they did ask BBC if they could remake that version and they said no. Soooooo

[The Man]

I find it difficult to imagine this being better than the BBC's series, but I'll still watch it anyway.

[Slothy]

Well if you watch their sherlock you'll know why. It's top quality stuff. And they did ask BBC if they could remake that version and they said no. Soooooo

I'm not denying that it was a bit of a slap in the face, it's just that at the end of the day if they want to make a different modern take on Sherlock Holmes the BBC can't really do much unless they blatantly steal characters or scripts almost verbatim.

[NeoCracker]

I find it difficult to imagine this being better than the BBC's series, but I'll still watch it anyway.

I find it difficult to believe it will be as good as the last couple Sherlock Holmes movies, and probably won't watch it until it's out on DVD and someone I know picks it up. :p

[Madonna]

I am as excited for this as I was for the Young Sherlock Holmes (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJoAQO5FX50) television series. That is to say, I am expecting a large pile of crap and not thrilled. When trying to do Sherlock Holmes, there has to be some class; something which was not noticeable in this trailer. And removing the bromance? Heresy.

[krissy]

the bbc sherlock is one of the best things to happen to television in the last few years

so i'm unsure of what this is trying to achieve

and lucy liu does not fit the role of watson, be watson male or female

[Raistlin]

I am also highly skeptical that this can even approach the BBC series (even with some disappointments in the 2nd season), but I'll watch it anyway. With low expectations, it might even be a pleasant surprise.

[Bunny]

Why.

Why make Watson female? What purpose does that serve aside from adding the obvious season finale sexual tension between the two characters and the whole "will they won't they" vibe that almost every single American drama unnecessarily has?

I give almost every new show a shot by default, so I will at least watch the first few episodes but I honestly do not see the point.

(Also use BBC Sherlock is incredibly and Benedict Cumberbatch is amazing.)

[charliepanayi]

Why not make Watson female? I don't think anyone's tried it before after all.

[Freya]

Because the whole dynamic of watson and sherlock is changed. It's no longer a bromance where they have each others backs because they have a weird but awesome friendship and it turns into sexual tension. :/

[Del Murder]

So did anyone end up watching this? Like others I'm doubtful it will match the mastery of the BBC series or the excitement of the Downey/Law movies. Making Watson female seems like a gimmick move with no real purpose and Lucy Liu just doesn't fit the role. I see this becoming nothing more than another procedural crime show if it lasts at all.

[Miriel]

I've been meaning to watch Sherlock as well since you mention it Freya. I have to get to that soon, though I must say I found the idea of the BBC claiming some degree of ownership over the concept of a modern take on Sherlock Holmes quite laughable.

That's because you haven't watched the BBC version. It's not just a modern remake of Sherlock, it's a complete re-imagining. There are certain elements to the BBC's Sherlock that are unique to that show and doesn't fall under public domain.



I'm not denying that it was a bit of a slap in the face, it's just that at the end of the day if they want to make a different modern take on Sherlock Holmes the BBC can't really do much unless they blatantly steal characters or scripts almost verbatim.
They don't need to do anything as obvious as steal dialogue VERBATIM. For example, the BBC's Sherlock has a very distinct visual style. A fabulous one, I might add. If CBS even sniffed around doing something similar, I do think Moffat and crew wouldn't hesitate to sue.

I've even heard that technically, they could even try and protect BBC Sherlock's distinctive clothing style.

The BBC's Sherlock is ridiculously, outrageously amazing. I have really zero desire to watch the CBS version because the whole time, I think I'd be comparing the two. The CBS one also seems rather like a standard detective/cop/crime type show that's too similar to the plethora of other existing shows.

I actually don't mind the fact that they made Watson a girl, but really, the bromance is the best part about Sherlock. And the bromance on the BBC's Sherlock is part of what makes it so god damn amazing. You guys, that last season finale. Omg, my heart.



I find it difficult to believe it will be as good as the last couple Sherlock Holmes movies, and probably won't watch it until it's out on DVD and someone I know picks it up. :p
I enjoyed the recent Sherlock movies but the BBC version is better. Completely different, but still better.

[The Man]

Having re-watched the entire BBC series this week, there's absolutely no way it will be bettered this generation. I'm not even exaggerating.

I think I TiVo'd this so I'll see how I feel about it. Maybe it'll be a better-than-average crime drama but it won't have anything on the Moffat/Gatiss series. Everything about the BBC version is absolutely perfect.

And yeah the second series finale is just wrenching.

[Bunny]

I actually don't mind the fact that they made Watson a girl, but really, the bromance is the best part about Sherlock.

I don't really have a problem with them making Watson female. I don't find anything wrong with that at all. My main concern is that they did it for the sole purpose of the sexual tension or eventual relationship between Sherlock and Watson, as most American television shows seem most concerned with doing this between male and female lead characters.

And I'll jump on the train for any and all BBC Sherlock love and/or Benedict Cumberbatch circlejerking.

[charliepanayi]

Oh wait, it's on CBS? I'm out.

[Slothy]

That's because you haven't watched the BBC version. It's not just a modern remake of Sherlock, it's a complete re-imagining. There are certain elements to the BBC's Sherlock that are unique to that show and doesn't fall under public domain.

Did I ever say anything to the contrary? Simply making another modern re-imagining of Sherlock Holmes isn't going to be enough to get CBS in legal trouble though. If they start lifting things Sherlock did verbatim then I'd be happy to criticize them, but it seemed a bit silly to get bent out of shape before anyone had even seen the show. So long as Elementary is sufficiently different there should be no issue.

And I actually have watched Sherlock now (watched it all between Thursday night and Sunday morning actually) and I agree, it is amazing and there's absolutely no way that a 20 some episode network series from America is going to top it. Benedict Cumberbatch is a sexy beast. In fact, I actually didn't even watch the pilot for Elementary because I completely forgot about it somewhere around the point Watson was introduced to Sherlock and he got sibling with a drinking problem and psychosomatic limp. Odds are I probably won't watch it now because I can't be arsed to catch up on a new show unless I hear it's jaw droppingly amazing.

[Raistlin]

I don't really have a problem with them making Watson female. I don't find anything wrong with that at all. My main concern is that they did it for the sole purpose of the sexual tension or eventual relationship between Sherlock and Watson, as most American television shows seem most concerned with doing this between male and female lead characters.

I agree. See: Castle. My god, Castle.

[Miriel]

If they start lifting things Sherlock did verbatim then I'd be happy to criticize them, but it seemed a bit silly to get bent out of shape before anyone had even seen the show. So long as Elementary is sufficiently different there should be no issue.

You would need VERBATIM theft in order to criticize? That's giving rather lot of latitude.

People, especially the creators of Sherlock, are rightfully annoyed because having turned down CBS to do a remake of their currently airing TV show, they went ahead and made their own inferior product anyway. It's not even as though Sherlock isn't airing in the States, it is via PBS.

It's just rude and not very creative to boot.

People have a right to protect their creative endeavors. CBS saw the great success of Sherlock, the fact that Sherlock Holmes itself falls under public domain and bam! Oh hey! We're gonna do a modern retake too! But uh, instead of a highly functioning sociopath, we're making him do a stint in rehab. And Watson's a girl! We're sooooo different.

[Slothy]

You would need VERBATIM theft in order to criticize? That's giving rather lot of latitude.

People, especially the creators of Sherlock, are rightfully annoyed because having turned down CBS to do a remake of their currently airing TV show, they went ahead and made their own inferior product anyway. It's not even as though Sherlock isn't airing in the States, it is via PBS.

It's just rude and not very creative to boot.

People have a right to protect their creative endeavors. CBS saw the great success of Sherlock, the fact that Sherlock Holmes itself falls under public domain and bam! Oh hey! We're gonna do a modern retake too! But uh, instead of a highly functioning sociopath, we're making him do a stint in rehab. And Watson's a girl! We're sooooo different.

I'm not saying no one can criticize it for being a modern re-imagining of Sherlock Holmes after they were turned down about remaking Sherlock. But I would personally withhold criticism about them blatantly stealing anything until I actually saw it and could determine if they did. This is what I'm getting at. As far as I can tell, they haven't infringed on any copyright as the concept seems sufficiently different to get around it.

Sure it's seems slightly underhanded and uncreative, but I'm not going to accuse them of stealing or infringing on intellectual property prior to actually seeing if they did. So far, that seems to be what many people who've attacked them over this have been at least heavily implying (and I'm not necessarily referring to people here or the creators of Sherlock but people making comments on other sites and articles when the show was originally announced, though it was inevitable that lighting that fire in the media was going to send some fans off on a crusade to vilify this show).

I could care less if the idea is unoriginal and is merely trying to ride the success of another show, I need a bit more than that to accuse them of outright infringement.

[Miriel]

I haven't seen anyone claim copyright infringement off the bat, it's just the potential for thievery is obviously there. It's more annoyance and incredulity in the same line as, "Why is there a new spiderman movie already?"

[Slothy]

It's more annoyance and incredulity in the same line as, "Why is there a new spiderman movie already?"

Yeah, some people are idiots and don't understand copyright law on even the most basic level though.

As for that question, it's pretty easy, because The Amazing Spider-Man was better than the original Spider-Man trilogy by a fair margin.

And just to show that I actually do really really like Sherlock; this was my entry in the FFV costume contest since no one actually looks in that forum (and all the Sherlock fans seem to be in this thread):
http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e161/Vivi2372/Bartzsherlock1_zps6b4c9084.png

[Psychotic]

Toot toot all aboard the BBC train.

That showdown between Moriarty and Sherlock. Just... fuck a DUCK!

[Slothy]

Toot toot all aboard the BBC train.

That showdown between Moriarty and Sherlock. Just... fuck a DUCK!

That was pretty damn incredible.

[krissy]

Sherlock Can't Solve "Elementary" | Funny Video | Jest (http://www.jest.com/video/199700/sherlock-elementary)

[The Man]

Watched this last night. I would say it is good, not great, but it does have potential. The main thing that lifts the BBC show well above this, apart from its devotion to canon, is the chemistry between Holmes and Watson. Cumberbatch and Freeman are the objectively two perfect people to play those roles.

It appears that the makers of this show are going for a bit of a different take on Holmes than either the Guy Ritchie films or the BBC show. Which is fine; the nice thing about the Holmes stories is that they offer a lot of room for interpretation. But I would say this is a much looser adaptation of the canon than the Moffat/Gatiss show. The BBC version has what I would call a polyamorous relationship with the canon - it is largely based on the original Holmes stories with tons of call-backs to the underlying mythology, but they throw in bits from elsewhere to make it more modern as well. Elementary is more of an open relationship or even friends with benefits. The main characters are clearly Holmes and Watson, but obviously transporting the show from London to New York has changed quite a few things, and it appears that they're going for original stories rather than interpretations of the Holmes canon. Which is fine, if they're well written.

The interpretations of Holmes are also quite different. He's arrogant and socially awkward in both, but Moffat's Holmes is, if not completely asexual (Moffat has stated that he isn't asexual, but we all know what a Lying/Trolling Creator he is, so that could mean anything), then celibate. This Holmes is... not. When we're introduced to him we see a woman getting dressed in his room and leaving before Watson shows up, and he later remarks that he does not function well without sex. (Certainly a rather big departure from the Conan Doyle stories, but I'm willing to see where they're going with it). This is also different from the Ritchie/Downey version, who romances Irene Adler but does not come across as particularly sex-dependent. (Also a bit of a departure from canon, by the way, more so I'd say than making him an action hero - as far as I can remember he never actually shows any interest in romance in any of the stories).

The opening story was pretty engaging. Not exactly unpredictable, but the writing did a reasonably credible job establishing Holmes as a genius and presenting Watson's potential as an investigator. It does have the same problem the original stories and most of the adaptations of the Holmes canon (including the BBC version) do, that Holmes is almost unnaturally smarter than the rest of the characters, including ones who are supposed to be fairly smart on their own. (For instance, in the BBC show, even Irene Adler, who is presented as being a worthy adversary to Holmes, makes a number of rather stupid mistakes, despite being presented as a perfectly intelligent character. Even Moriarty makes the rather crucial mistake of not expecting Holmes to turn to Molly Hooper when Watson, Mrs. Hudson and Lestrade).

I do rather hope that they don't turn this into a show with clear romantic tension between the leads. I'm pretty sure they couldn't outdo Castle. This is what the producers have said:


Rob [Doherty] often calls it a bromance, but one of the bros just happens to be a woman. He said that from the very beginning and I think it's really an apt description. There's this idea that a man and a woman can't be together on a show especially without needing to be together sexually or in love or whatever, and this is really about the evolution of a friendship and how that happens.So make of that what you will.

Haven't seen Moriarty yet. The actor had better be good. I'm not familiar with Jonny Lee Miller's previous work, but he's rather charming as Sherlock. Lucy Liu, as expected, was good in the role.

[Del Murder]

I watched about 30 minutes of it. It's pretty bad. There is virtually no difference between this show and The Mentalist, Lie to Me, Monk, or any other crime solving show that features a guy with a special ability to solve crimes and his female handler. For that reason it may actually succeed.

Jonny Lee Miller's Holmes doesn't do anything for me either. The problem he has is that there are already two modern portrayals of Sherlock Holmes out there, both of which are quite different, and in my opinion, quite good. His Holmes doesn't really distinguish itself from the others and it seems like it's trying to be a mixture of both. I didn't watch this and get 'Sherlock Holmes' from that character. I just got a British guy who can solve crimes.

[The Man]

See, I see quite a big difference from Lie To Me (haven't seen the others on your list, though I've been led to understand The Mentalist is also based on a very specific skill set) - Lightman relies almost exclusively on his knowledge of psychology to solve crimes. Indeed, nearly every plot development in the show is driven by his reading of facial expressions and body language, to the point where it became a crutch when it wasn't used believably in the later episodes (which is probably, when combined with the Flanderisation of most of the cast, a large part of the reason why it got cancelled). While Holmes does rely on psychology to a certain degree, it's far from being the only thing that drives his investigations in this show. When compared to the BBC show, I will certainly agree that it's not done nearly as elegantly or impressively in this version. But I'm not really sure how they could have done it as effectively without being accused of plagiarism, since much of what established Holmes' abilities as an investigator in that show was based off of camera work, onscreen text and other technical means. (And actually, now that I think about it, the Guy Ritchie films do something rather similar, though not identical, in a number of cases). I'm not really sure how they could have done anything like that without being accused of plagiarism.

[Citizen Bleys]

Are you people seriously comparing British and American versions of TV shows and expecting the American one to measure up? That is a once in a lifetime event and it is called The Office.

[The Man]

I'm not. I explicitly said in my first post that it was extremely difficult to imagine it measuring up to the British version.

[Miriel]

Not even comparing it to the BBC version, I thought it was pretty weak television. Not terrible, but not good at all. Worse than equivalent crime solving shows. Shows like Lie to Me aren't exactly award winning shows, but I still liked watching them on occasion for mindless fun. Elementary didn't engage me at all. I thought it was boring, I thought the leads weren't organic in their roles. Sherlock especially felt too try hard. I bet it gets a full season at least though. It's just mediocre enough to appeal to a wide audience.

[The Man]

It's just mediocre enough to appeal to a wide audience.Every time I hear anyone say something like this, I cringe. Mediocrity is what appeals to a wide audience? Do you honestly believe anyone intentionally looks for mediocre television? "I have a limited amount of time in a day, so what I'm really looking for is mediocre television." No. People watch television because they find it interesting or entertaining. If they don't find something interesting entertaining, why would they bother watching it? People don't watch television because it's bad (unless they're intentionally looking for something to mock, which isn't a large enough demographic to make a show successful). They watch it because it has qualities they find desirable in a television show.

This is not to say that anything that large numbers of people watch is necessarily good (this is obviously not the case in any universe in which Jersey Shore exists). But your line of reasoning appears to be that people watch television because it is mediocre. This is an absurdly elitist and completely unrealistic line of reasoning to take. If people watch a show, it is because it has qualities they are looking for in a piece of television. If a show is mediocre but still successful, it is much more likely that the people who watch it are looking for something that is completely independent of quality than that they are intentionally seeking out So Okay It's Average television. I mean, at least a show that is bad is fodder for mockery, but what can you do with mediocrity, unless there's something about it that appeals to you?

Anyway, Lie to Me got pretty bad towards the end, with Lightman becoming almost a caricature of himself, and the plots got convoluted to the point of nearly breaking suspension of belief (although I still didn't stop watching, mostly because I kept hoping the show would find its earlier quality). This was way better than most of the third season. It also sounds like you're expecting the pilot of this to be as good as later episodes in other established crime dramas, which seems like a faulty comparison, because most shows (especially shows where a lot of the drama stems from the interaction between the leads) rely on character interactions that take a long time to set up. Many great shows had pilots that were rather unremarkable. Hell, apparently Babylon 5 took an entire season to find its footing. (still haven't watched that yet though).

[Miriel]

You kind of really totally misinterpreted my whole point. I never said that people watch TV shows BECAUSE it's mediocre, I said that the show itself is mediocre and that it's just mediocre enough (ie: not horrible, and not brilliant) that it will find an audience.

People who watch crappy shows don't always know they're watching crappy shows. Really smart intelligent brilliant shows tend to have a much harder time finding a LARGE audience. Look at Parks and Recreation. I think it's the most intelligent comedy on television right now, but it loses out to shows like Two and Half Men. By, a LOT. P&R gets around 3 million viewers whereas Two and Half Men even without Charlie Sheen and with that little kid now being an obese teenager gets around 12 million viewers.

That's the kind of shit I'm talking about.

Elementary got about 13 million viewers. That is HUGE for such a lackluster show. Now granted, PBS is not a major network but Sherlock premiered in the US at just 3 million viewers. The number of people who watch a show rarely correlates with the quality of a show. The point is, Elementary is not smart enough to scare people off. It's mediocre and I think enough people will find it "just ok" enough to keep tuning in.

[Del Murder]

Americans love mediocre. CSI, NCIS, and their various spinoffs are top shows and Mitt Romney is a presidential nominee.

[The Man]

You kind of really totally misinterpreted my whole point. I never said that people watch TV shows BECAUSE it's mediocre, I said that the show itself is mediocre and that it's just mediocre enough (ie: not horrible, and not brilliant) that it will find an audience.

People who watch crappy shows don't always know they're watching crappy shows. Really smart intelligent brilliant shows tend to have a much harder time finding a LARGE audience. Look at Parks and Recreation. I think it's the most intelligent comedy on television right now, but it loses out to shows like Two and Half Men. By, a LOT. P&R gets around 3 million viewers whereas Two and Half Men even without Charlie Sheen and with that little kid now being an obese teenager gets around 12 million viewers.

That's the kind of trout I'm talking about.

Elementary got about 13 million viewers. That is HUGE for such a lackluster show. Now granted, PBS is not a major network but Sherlock premiered in the US at just 3 million viewers. The number of people who watch a show rarely correlates with the quality of a show. The point is, Elementary is not smart enough to scare people off. It's mediocre and I think enough people will find it "just ok" enough to keep tuning in.I was hoping you weren't trying to say what it looked like you were trying to say, and I'm still not sure I'm fully understanding it, but I think you, in turn, have misinterpreted my argument.

I outright acknowledged that a lot of what is popular is not just mediocre but terrible. And it is quite true that many very good shows do not find an audience quickly, or even ever (though honestly, P&R isn't even the example I would have used for this, Arrested Development is a much better example as it struggled with its ratings throughout its existence and as a result was brought to a conclusion long before it deserved to be).

However, it's not a hard-and-fast rule. Mad Men is a brilliant show and millions of people watch it despite the fact that it's on a cable channel that probably only 30% of the country even gets. Game of Thrones is a very good show (I would describe the first season as outright brilliant, the second season as less so) and it also gets millions of viewers despite being on a network that probably even fewer of the country gets. Modern Family is a brilliant comedy and 13 million people watched the season 3 première. You're acting like a show has to be mediocre for it to get good ratings, and that's plainly not true.

Furthermore, a lot of these shows that have struggled were screwed with by clueless execs, or any of a number of other factors that have very little to do with the taste of their audience. I'm not that familiar with P&R, but Arrested Development suffered from being a very context-dependent comedy that aired before the age of DVRs, and from network execs that not only had no idea how to market it but often completely failed even to try, and moreover changing its time slot to the point where no one had any idea when it aired. (I could rant about plenty of other similar shows that were similarly screwed - Better Off Ted and Firefly come to mind immediately).

These shows that you're describing as "mediocre" - I'll quite agree that a lot of people who watch them probably can't tell that they're in fact mediocre shows. (I wouldn't even describe Two and a Half Men as mediocre, I'd call it outright bad). However, that's not why people watch them. People watch them because there are qualities in the shows that appeal to them, and because most likely there are not many qualities that do not appeal to them. It's entirely possible that higher-brow television would be a turnoff to a substantial number of Americans, but (1) being high-brow does not mean a show will always be good, and (2) just because some people will not watch it does not mean it will not nonetheless get good ratings.

I would posit that a major part of the reason Elementary got so many more viewers than Sherlock is because it's on a major network that has resources to market the hell out of it. PBS/BBC can't afford that kind of resources in this country. It's like comparing the votes a Green Party candidate gets to the votes a Democratic Party candidate gets. Of course the Democrat gets more. He has infinitely more marketing behind him. That doesn't necessarily mean that people like his policies better. (Of course there's also the additional problem that people think voting third party is throwing your vote away, but ya know). If the BBC gave Sherlock to one of our major networks to run, and as many resources were put behind promoting it as were put behind Elementary, I suspect their ratings would be much closer together.

Anyway, I would never describe something that's "not horrible, but not brilliant" as "mediocre", since "mediocre" is often considered as being "barely adequate", or even "not satisfactory, poor, inferior", so it's quite likely that part of our disagreement comes from semantics.


Americans love mediocre. CSI, NCIS, and their various spinoffs are top shows and Mitt Romney is a presidential nominee.They're not top shows because they're mediocre, though. They're top shows because they not only entertain many people but also because they don't offend many people. Of course, not offending people is a characteristic of many mediocre shows, but there's a lot more to mediocrity than that (and plenty of non-mediocre things are also generally not offensive).

And Mitt Romney is the most reviled presidential nominee from a major party in a long time, so I'm pretty sure he wasn't a <s>bad</s> good example.

[Del Murder]

I think there is a difference in semantics. I don't see mediocre shows as 'bad'. More like ordinary, average, nothing special. CSI and NCIS are certainly nothing special, but they aren't bad. Elementary is too. People obviously will not watch a show unless it appeals to them. The appeal of Elementary is that it is your standard crime show, which many people love, with a Sherlock Holmes twist. There's nothing special or extraordinary about it, at least from what I saw. Sherlock on the other hand is very extraordinary and special. Americans seem to not like quirky or special things unless they are marketed and presented in a very specific way. Fortunately for Elementary, it is not quirky or special so it won't have to deal with that issue. It is perfectly mediocre.

I think Miriel's point is that Elementary is not quirky enough to put off the average American, but it isn't terrible either. So it does have a good chance of finding an audience and lasting a while because it has that 'average crime show' appeal.

[Miriel]

However, it's not a hard-and-fast rule.
Never said it was a hard and fast rule.


You're acting like a show has to be mediocre for it to get good ratings, and that's plainly not true.

Nope, never acted like this. Who would ever suggest anything like that? Of course tons of great shows get great ratings. What are you going on about?


being high-brow does not mean a show will always be good
Nope nope nope, never suggested this was the case.


However, that's not why people watch them. People watch them because there are qualities in the shows that appeal to them, and because most likely there are not many qualities that do not appeal to them.
Pretty sure I clearly said no one goes out LOOKING specifically for something mediocre.

You are waaaaay overthinking this. Building up in your head all these random arguments that I never even touched on.

It's really really simple. It's not that great of a show, but it will still do moderately well in ratings. That's all.

[The Man]

Never said it was a hard and fast rule.You made a number of statements that suggested that it was very often the case. I think that is far from established.


Nope, never acted like this.Really?


Really smart intelligent brilliant shows tend to have a much harder time finding a LARGE audience. There are a rather substantial number of examples of smart, intelligent, brilliant shows that have found LARGE audiences. To the point where saying they "tend to have" a "much harder time" seems like a pretty strange statement to make.


Pretty sure I clearly said no one goes out LOOKING specifically for something mediocre.You explicitly said it will find an audience BECAUSE it's mediocre - "it's just mediocre enough... that it will find it an audience". I am saying that it being mediocre (or not) has nothing to do with why it will find an audience. It will find an audience (or not) because it has (or doesn't have) qualities people like. Those qualities have little to nothing to do with "mediocrity".


I think there is a difference in semantics. I don't see mediocre shows as 'bad'. More like ordinary, average, nothing special.One of the definitions of "mediocre" in my dictionary and at dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mediocre) is "not satisfactory, poor, inferior". This squares with how I've generally seen it used - if people meant to say something was "average" they would use "average" or "nothing special" or something like that. "Mediocre" has a much more negative connotation than "average".

May be a regional usage issue, though.

To put it another way, if there were a seven-point scale these would roughly correspond to the rankings:

Terrible - Bad - Mediocre - Average - Good - Excellent - Classic


Sherlock on the other hand is very extraordinary and special. Americans seem to not like quirky or special things unless they are marketed and presented in a very specific way. Sherlock is certainly extraordinary but I don't think it's really any quirkier than any of the other adaptations of the Holmes canon I've seen. It's a bit more British than some of them; that's about the only thing I can see that makes it potentially offputting to American audiences. Most of my friends love it, although admitted my friends are probably not a representative cross-section of American television audiences, but the reception has been extremely positive consistently enough that I'm fairly certain that if it were the subject of a more extensive marketing campaign it would be able to find a much larger audience. As I've said, I think the main reason Elementary got so much larger ratings is because it was marketed much more thoroughly.

The "standard crime show with a Sherlock Holmes twist" summation is a fair argument - that is a legitimate reason that people would want to watch it. That is not what I was seeing above.

[Del Murder]

Your scale looks about right. I would definitely put Elementary in the Mediocre-Average range there, closer to Mediocre.

[The Man]

I'd put it at average to good. So I guess our reactions aren't that much different.

That said, this is just a pilot so I'm not putting too much stock in their reaction to it. As I said above, a lot of shows take awhile to find their footing. It hasn't done any grave injustices to the Holmes canon yet so I'll probably keep watching as long as it continues not to do so and continues to be at least reasonably interesting.

[Miriel]

There are a rather substantial number of examples of smart, intelligent, brilliant shows that have found LARGE audiences. To the point where saying they "tend to have" a "much harder time" seems like a pretty strange statement to make.
Nope, not really strange. Find me shows that are brilliant that can match the ratings giants like American Idol or NCIS.

A lot of the really creative, smart, and well acted shows are no longer even on network TV anymore, in at least a small part because I think they wouldn't survive there. Shows like Mad Men and Breaking Bad average about 2.5 million viewers. Before you start going off in that weird "she mentioned this, she MUST MEAN THIS OTHER THING AND HOW DARE SHE FAIL TO MENTION A, B & C as factors!!" line of argumentative posting you're currently binging on... Yes, cable audiences are going to be smaller than national broadcast networks. Yes, lots of people view online or illegal where Neilson can't factor in viewership. Yes marketing, yes, these aren't "family friendly" don't watch these shows etc etc etc. Yes yes yes.

But I don't know who would be silly enough to claim that if Mad Men were on network TV, it would have a huge audience like Big Bang Theory (which is a good show, but not a truly great one). I would say that if Mad Men were on regular TV, in its first few seasons it would definitely have been a show repeatedly on the bubble and up for possible cancelation.

Don't take my comments for more than they are or invent arguments to debate about.

I watch a lot of mediocre shows because sometimes, all you need is something to pass the time or engage you 20 minutes (hello, How I Met Your Mother!). There's nothing BAD about that or something wrong in calling a spade a spade.

Also, obviously, everything is just my opinion. You are free to think however you want, including the idea that Elementary is a good show.

[The Man]

I haven't ever been trying to argue that if Mad Men or Game of Thrones or Breaking Bad or something like that aired on a major network it would ever have the same kind of ratings as American Idol. That's absurd. But it would not be unthinkable for one of them to get seven to ten million viewers an episode, if they were promoted right and aired on a network everyone in the country could watch. To me that certainly qualifies as a "LARGE audience".

I mean, let's face it, Game of Thrones is already a colossal cultural phenomenon. How much bigger would it be if it were on a network everyone in the country could watch? (To be fair, it couldn't be aired on broadcast television because of all the sex and violence, but let's just pretend it could for the sake of a hypothetical argument - I'm too lazy to come up with a show on HBO/AMC/something like that that could be aired on a network in the same form). The second season averaged about 3.9 million viewers an episode on the first airing alone (10.3 million if you count all airings). Surely a major network would be able at least to double the 3.9 million figure for the first airing.

[Miriel]

Of course it's not unthinkable. It would just be harder for those shows than for shows like Law and Order or in my opinion this weaksauce Elementary. Which was kinda my whole point.

[The Man]

I don't really see how. Virtually everyone loves Game of Thrones as it is, in spite of its complexity. I suppose it's possible that virtually everyone who likes complex TV already has an HBO subscription, but I find that highly unlikely, since HBO viewers are a small fraction of the TV viewing populace. I don't see why it would be particularly difficult for such a show to hit 13 million viewing figures on a major network. As I said, when you count all the airings it already gets ten million viewers an episode on HBO. Granted, HBO airs episodes several times, but it strikes me as colossally unlikely that a network wouldn't be able to best those figures on first viewing. Ten million viewers an episode is an average, and the pilot of this got, what, thirteen million? It's highly unlikely it will keep that many viewers. It'll probably taper off to about eight to ten million.

So yeah, don't see how it's unlikely for shows like Game of Thrones to get similar viewing figures on networks. For it to get the same viewing figures as shows like Law and Order? Yes, that is a bit more unlikely. But it's a bit more unlikely for an average show to get that kind of viewing figures too. There are plenty of shows like Law and Order, or American Idol. Most of them are nowhere near as massive as Law and Order or American Idol.

[Del Murder]

Well, Game of Thrones is a bad example because it could really only exist on a network like HBO. Half the scenes have naked people in them.

But the point isn't that it would be impossible for shows like Game of Thrones to gain mass ratings, but that it is harder for them to do so. How many other popular shows like GoT are there versus ones like Law & Order? It's a more uphill battle because for unique shows because people instinctively like what is familiar to them. Cop Shows are a very familiar part of American culture so it's much safer and easier to make a show like that than one like Sherlock or GoT. So that's what Elementary has done and why it has a chance to succeed.

In the end people generally will watch a show if it is great TV, though not always (Firefly and Arrested). But if a show isn't great (ie. is mediocre), it has a much better chance to succeed if it is some derivation of the buddy cop formula versus something fantasy based like GoT. The evidence (all the cop shows currently on air versus fantasy shows) certainly points that way.

[Miriel]

Are you being obtuse? Game of Thrones did not start off with great ratings. Or great reviews for that matter. But of course it has the potential to be something like Lost on regular TV. I never said it was impossible. All I said was that shows that are smart and intense and character driven are going to have a harder time than shows that are easy to watch. The shows you can pop into for gentle mental stimulation before going to bed. Shows like Elementary that are perfunctory in it's entertainment will appeal to people much more easily than shows with lots of depth or violence or too little violence or a host of other reasons.

Look at Friday Night Lights. Arguable one of the best television shows on network TV in recent years. To NBC's credit they really did try and push the hell out of the show. Aggressive promotion, huge favorite amongst critics AND TV execs which is kinda rare.

And every freakin' year, threat of cancelation. The numbers were terrible.

It also had a hugely loyal fanbase, even if it was a small one. But America just didn't want to tune in. It is an amaaaazing show.

[The Man]

Well, Game of Thrones is a bad example because it could really only exist on a network like HBO. Half the scenes have naked people in them.

But the point isn't that it would be impossible for shows like Game of Thrones to gain mass ratings, but that it is harder for them to do so. How many other popular shows like GoT are there versus ones like Law & Order? It's a more uphill battle because for unique shows because people instinctively like what is familiar to them. Cop Shows are a very familiar part of American culture so it's much safer and easier to make a show like that than one like Sherlock or GoT. So that's what Elementary has done and why it has a chance to succeed.

In the end people generally will watch a show if it is great TV, though not always (Firefly and Arrested). But if a show isn't great (ie. is mediocre), it has a much better chance to succeed if it is some derivation of the buddy cop formula versus something fantasy based like GoT. The evidence (all the cop shows currently on air versus fantasy shows) certainly points that way.I would dispute that, simply because not only are there fewer great popular shows than mediocre popular shows, but also there are fewer great shows full stop than mediocre shows full stop. There is a much smaller pool of candidates to become gigantic successes. How many other shows like Game of Thrones are there, period? There are none. No one else has done fantasy like this, ever. It's quite likely that now that someone has, there will be imitators, but the simple fact is that it was completely unprecedented in American television, it was on a network that maybe a tenth of the country even subscribes to, and it still managed to become a gigantic cultural phenomenon.

And Sherlock is definitely still a variation on the traditional cop show, except the main character is a "consulting detective" rather than a cop. But so is the main character in Elementary. Granted, Sherlock differs in a number of other ways - obviously, there's its quality, and there's the length and complexity of the episodes - but I don't think the latter is really a fair reason for it not to succeed, because people are still familiar with complex crime dramas from film, and many high-quality crime dramas do very well at the box office. Look at L.A. Confidential, or The Town, or Mystic River, or Chinatown. Not exactly box office flops.

[Del Murder]

There's no other shows like Game of Thrones because no one expects a show like that to succeed. And it didn't at first. Which kind of proves the point. Now that it has succeeded, maybe we will see more shows like it. I'd be fine with that. :)

I would say Sherlock is more of a modern adaptation of the Doyle books than a variation of the modern cop show. Of course you could then say all modern cop shows are just copies of the Doyle stories. Maybe they are. ;)

[The Man]

Are you being obtuse? Game of Thrones did not start off with great ratings.I... didn't say that it did? I wasn't arguing about the ratings for the pilot. I was arguing about the ratings for the second season. And I don't appreciate the implied insult.


Or great reviews for that matter.With the exception of a couple of high-profile carpers (Gina Bellafonte being the main one that stands out in my memory), I remember most of the press coverage being quite positive.


But of course it has the potential to be something like Lost on regular TV. I never said it was impossible. All I said was that shows that are smart and intense and character driven are going to have a harder time than shows that are easy to watch. The shows you can pop into for gentle mental stimulation before going to bed. Shows like Elementary that are perfunctory in it's entertainment will appeal to people much more easily than shows with lots of depth or violence or too little violence or a host of other reasons.

Look at Friday Night Lights. Arguable one of the best television shows on network TV in recent years. To NBC's credit they really did try and push the hell out of the show. Aggressive promotion, huge favorite amongst critics AND TV execs which is kinda rare.

And every freakin' year, threat of cancelation. The numbers were terrible.

It also had a hugely loyal fanbase, even if it was a small one. But America just didn't want to tune in. It is an amaaaazing show.And they also ran Friday Night Lights on Friday night every year except the first one. Appropriate given the subject matter, not so appropriate if you want to turn a show into a gigantic hit. It's called the Friday Night Death Slot for a reason.

I haven't said every great show will turn out huge. But the point you're missing is that not every mediocre show will either. For every show like Law and Order, there are dozens that don't make it, and statistical analysis alone indicates that large numbers of them will be mediocre. Meanwhile, we can focus on Arrested Development, but there are also shows like Modern Family, a complex and intelligent show that with aggressive promotion that does become a cultural phenomenon. We can focus on Firefly, but that would be ignoring shows like Battlestar Galactica (terrible though the ending was) or Doctor Who. It has yet to be demonstrated that the ratio of great shows that struggle with ratings to great shows that become huge hits is any worse than the number of mediocre shows that constantly struggle with ratings to mediocre shows that become huge hits. You're acting like mediocrity alone will be enough to make a show a gigantic hit, and that's plainly not true. The reason such a smaller number of great shows become huge hits than mediocre ones is because there are such a smaller number of great shows.


There's no other shows like Game of Thrones because no one expects a show like that to succeed. And it didn't at first. Which kind of proves the point. Now that it has succeeded, maybe we will see more shows like it. I'd be fine with that.Most people didn't expect a show like Lost to succeed either, but it did - in this case from the start (and arguably too well, as the first season led people to expect them to maintain a level of quality that was obviously, in retrospect, impossible for them to maintain). And then dozens of people copied it, and a lot of the imitators were pale imitators, and most of them floundered. The one show I'm aware of that really managed to capture the same balance of mystique and character focus, Once Upon a Time, has also become a pretty big hit (although it lacks the moral complexity of Lost, but whatever, can't have everything).

Furthermore, no one ever really expected Game of Thrones to get ten million viewers an episode in the first season, so I'd say that it wasn't exactly a commercial failure. As far as I'm aware, it performed almost exactly as everyone except certain fanboys expected it to.

Like I said above - for every mediocre show that becomes a gigantic hit, there are probably dozens that fail. For every great show that becomes a gigantic hit, there are probably quite a few that don't. But acting like it's harder for a show to become hugely successful if it's a great show? I don't see that. We notice the mediocre shows that are successful more because, well, they're successful. But there are plenty of such shows that don't make it.


I would say Sherlock is more of a modern adaptation of the Doyle books than a variation of the modern cop show. Of course you could then say all modern cop shows are just copies of the Doyle stories. Maybe they are. Read my mind. Cal Lightman is certainly a copy of Sherlock Holmes. So, from what I can tell, is Monk (I'm not that familiar with the show yet). It even extends beyond cop shows - The Doctor is also a copy of Sherlock (and The Master is a copy of Moriarty). Hell, in the latter case the writers have flat-out admitted it.

[Del Murder]

I don't even know what you are arguing anymore. Let's just agree that every buddy cop show ever made is just copying Doyle's stories and call it a day.

If Doyle was alive today, do you think he would like Sherlock, Elementary, or the Guy Richie movies the best? My money is on Sherlock, but I don't have my time machine built to prove it yet.

[The Man]

It's simple, though maybe I've overcomplicated it: the two of you are claiming, from what I've been able to tell, that it's harder for a great show to become successful than it is for a mediocre one. I'm arguing that this hasn't been satisfactorily demonstrated. Yes, there are fewer great shows that are wildly successful than mediocre ones. But there are fewer great shows, period, than mediocre ones, so the ratio of successful great shows to successful mediocre ones is to be expected. Moreover, there are plenty of mediocre shows that never even make it past their first season. So you can't just demonstrate that lots of great shows are unsuccessful. You have to show that not only are lots of great shows unsuccessful, but a larger percentage of great shows are unsuccessful than mediocre ones.

I'm not taking issue with the suggestion that lots of successful shows are mediocre, nor the suggestion that lots of great shows never find widespread success. I am taking issue with the suggestion that it is much harder for a great show to find widespread success than a mediocre one. The American public may have crappy taste, but I don't believe its taste is that crappy.

[Del Murder]

Ok. Well I'm not really arguing that. I'm arguing that it is harder for a great show that tries to be different to succeed at a massive appeal level than it is for a mediocre show that follows proven successful formulas.

[The Man]

Ok. That, I can buy. I would, however, say that a mediocre show that also tries to be different will probably encounter similar problems.

[Del Murder]

Well, yeah, that show doesn't have a chance.

[Psychotic]

The Miriel, The Man and The Murder.

This thread or my idea for a new detective show...? :greenie:

[Bunny]

Ok. Well I'm not really arguing that. I'm arguing that it is harder for a great show that tries to be different to succeed at a massive appeal level than it is for a mediocre show that follows proven successful formulas.

I neglected to read the massive wall of text that suddenly appeared in this thread and opted to only read things 4 sentences or less. I say the following with the apprehension that 1) it was covered already and/or 2) it doesn't fit in with the rest of whatever else was said here:

Firefly is the perfect example of the "show that tries to be different" and fails to capture a large enough audience to be successful.

I am, against my better judgement, going to sit down and watch this show at some point within the next two days.

[Freya]

So you guys bicker far too much and I'm too lazy to read all the walls-o text. I watched this last night. Sherlock didn't seem as endearing as he should. I didn't think "Oh man this guy is cool I want to follow his adventures!" Like I do for every other Sherlock. I mean it was an OK show though. Still don't like watson being a female but lucy liu didn't do a bad job.