i think you know a lost cause when you see one;
Taking a few minutes off Shakespeare and Katherina to consider Arthur Conan Doyle and Joan Watson: a quick outlook on Elementary (mostly because this question is asked me a lot these days? not sure why there's a sudden outpouring of What do you think about Elementary, Sara).
So! Considering this preview:
Which IMO is much better than the first, if only because it gives us some more insight into the characters, I think - while the first preview had that really interesting scene between Joan and Holmes (? I can't see him liking to be called Sherlock, for some reason; let's go with Holmes for now) in jail, this gives us their meeting! their negociations! and a lovely, lovely scene about confrontation and identity and self-knowledge, which alone is getting me more hopeful for this series than everything else I've seen thus far.
There are very good, very valid reasons to be wary of Elementary as a show, especially one made so soon into the massive success of Sherlock; if anything, it's pretty tacky of CBS to, being forbidden to make a direct remake of the BBC series, make their own version of a modern update so quickly, as though to cash in on the prosperity and triumph of the British model. That said, while the decision to update this in a modern setting again may be somewhat tasteless, in my own opinion, that doesn't mean that they shouldn't be allowed to do it, or that the execution will necessarily be horrible; we'll have to see what the scriptwriting and direction are about, but I'm fully confident that Jonny Lee Miller and Lucy Liu are excellent actors who would be capable of turning even a mediocre script into good, proper work.
One reason to dislike Elementary on sight that is neither good nor valid, though: the casting of Lucy Liu as Joan Watson has been heavily criticized, for... absolutely no good reason that I can see, to be honest. While ningen_demonai and I have (repeatedly) agreed that she'd have been better cast for fem!Holmes, the very fact that they're casting a WOC in the role of a traditionally white man is progress, guys. It's fucking amazing.
There have been a number of people saying that a man and a woman can't have the same kind of profound relationship that Holmes and Watson, as men, have in canon, and - well. That's, to put things plainly, fucking stupid. If JLM and Lucy Liu do their job right, that is, if they manage to emulate the characters of Sherlock Holmes and Joan Watson in a consistent and believable way, then the friendship, the deep relationship of trust and affection and slight exasperation between the two of them will be there. The line of thought that says that two people of opposite genders can't be friends like two people of the same gender (because: insert reason here, because different brain processes, because obligatory sexual attraction, because romantic attachment - which, what the fuck, way to impose rigid hererocentric structures on friendship and affection in the first place) is outdated, simplistic, and puts people and gender in normative little boxes that should no longer even be thought valid in this day and age.
One thing that's worrying, though, is the possible treatment of Joan's portrayal. I still don't quite understand why they've taken out her military background, for instance - lots of pro-Elementary people are saying that it doesn't matter because canon!Watson wasn't a soldier (unlike BBC!John) but simply a medical surgeon, but the thing is, what matters isn't so much the army as it is the war. Canon!Watson got himself caught in one of the bloodiest battles of his time, in which he was one of the very few survivors in his regiment, and he returned to London damaged and nerve-rattled, sleepless, emaciated, and very poor. That, IMO, is one of the defining features of his character: he's already escaped death; he's been very ill from his wound taking infection in a moment of chaos and war, when there were very few chances he'd survive; he's extremely lonely at the beginning of STUD. It's possible that Elementary writers have managed to write in the same features in Joan, despite writing out an army background; but as it is the combination of genderswitching Joan and taking away her going at war, as though these two elements were incompatible, is making me a little wary.
Another criticism I've seen bandied about is the fact that part of the appeal of Holmes and Watson's (and by extension Sherlock and John's) relationship is the sliver of homoerotism that can be read between the lines of their close friendship, and that switching the gender of one of them means placing them in a more traditional and heterosexual relationship, and not addressing queer issues. The problem with that idea, though, is that no matter how much we shippers may wish they were in a relationship, they're, well, not, and every new adaptation that plays on this subtext only ever ends up reminding us of that fact.
(Speaking of, there are a lot of gay jokes in Sherlock, and I have to admit that in some ways they make me a little uncomfortable - I appreciate the "now people will definitely talk" kind of quips, because they do address the fact that yes, their relationship is sometimes ambiguous, but John's constant reminders that he is Not Gay, for instance, are starting to make me wince. I was glad when he dropped it in Hounds, to be honest (thank you, Mark Gatiss!). I'd rather the gay subtext in this show be the kind of subtext that makes John admit that Sherlock is the most important person in his life or that there are some things he wished he'd gotten to tell him before he supposedly saw him die, rather than the tiresome "no homo" jokes about how gay they look but how very ungay they truly are. In that regard, Moffat doesn't have a very good track record, at least in Sherlock (he's been doing pretty well with LGBT characters in Doctor Who, interestingly).)
So: Sherlock Holmes and John Watson aren't canonically in a relationship. Therefore, genderswapping John Watson into Joan Watson cannot ruin a completely non-existent homosexual relationship between them. Now, if Elementary does give us a romantic relationship between Holmes and Joan - that's a rather subtler problem, I think. If it happened (and this is completely hypothetical, you understand - I'm in no way saying that it will happen because they're suddenly of different genders, or that it's even a possibility if they want to stick to canon) it would certainly be disappointing that the first time any adaptation actually makes them canon is one where they're not both men (or both women - oh, I wish). However, there are three points that could counterbalance that disappointment:
I very, very much doubt that they'll be in a romantic relationship, in any case. No matter how much I'll end up shipping them in-fandom, I am always, always happy to see a completely platonic friendship between two people of opposite genders portrayed realistically and believably, and that, I hope, is what Elementary will give us.
There have been a certain amount of further criticism - which, uh:
However, many of the arguments currently used to criticize a show that hasn't even aired yet are often absurd and without foundation. There is no clearly this show will be horrible because; there is no obviously it will suck because; Elementary is currently far, far from elementary. It's an unknown factor. We don't know. We just don't. I'm looking forward to actually discovering the show, of watching it if it's good, of dropping it if it's bad; I'm really, really hoping that it portrays them as the screwed-up, damaged people that they are, that it manages to give New York the same symbolic charge as London, that the Holmes/Watson relationship is as deep and heart-rending as it is in canon.
I'm also wishing that the people who criticize it will at some point stop addressing it as a direct comparison to Sherlock, and start comparing it to ACD's books: BBC!John may not flinch away from a crime scene, but that doesn't mean no Watson ever should; BBC!Sherlock may not appear to exhibit many signs of empathy, but that doesn't mean canon!Holmes never does. My god, at this point, both the people either hating on it or obsessively stanning it and bashing Sherlock are getting on my nerves.
tl;dr to end all tl;drs:
So! Considering this preview:
Which IMO is much better than the first, if only because it gives us some more insight into the characters, I think - while the first preview had that really interesting scene between Joan and Holmes (? I can't see him liking to be called Sherlock, for some reason; let's go with Holmes for now) in jail, this gives us their meeting! their negociations! and a lovely, lovely scene about confrontation and identity and self-knowledge, which alone is getting me more hopeful for this series than everything else I've seen thus far.
There are very good, very valid reasons to be wary of Elementary as a show, especially one made so soon into the massive success of Sherlock; if anything, it's pretty tacky of CBS to, being forbidden to make a direct remake of the BBC series, make their own version of a modern update so quickly, as though to cash in on the prosperity and triumph of the British model. That said, while the decision to update this in a modern setting again may be somewhat tasteless, in my own opinion, that doesn't mean that they shouldn't be allowed to do it, or that the execution will necessarily be horrible; we'll have to see what the scriptwriting and direction are about, but I'm fully confident that Jonny Lee Miller and Lucy Liu are excellent actors who would be capable of turning even a mediocre script into good, proper work.
One reason to dislike Elementary on sight that is neither good nor valid, though: the casting of Lucy Liu as Joan Watson has been heavily criticized, for... absolutely no good reason that I can see, to be honest. While ningen_demonai and I have (repeatedly) agreed that she'd have been better cast for fem!Holmes, the very fact that they're casting a WOC in the role of a traditionally white man is progress, guys. It's fucking amazing.
There have been a number of people saying that a man and a woman can't have the same kind of profound relationship that Holmes and Watson, as men, have in canon, and - well. That's, to put things plainly, fucking stupid. If JLM and Lucy Liu do their job right, that is, if they manage to emulate the characters of Sherlock Holmes and Joan Watson in a consistent and believable way, then the friendship, the deep relationship of trust and affection and slight exasperation between the two of them will be there. The line of thought that says that two people of opposite genders can't be friends like two people of the same gender (because: insert reason here, because different brain processes, because obligatory sexual attraction, because romantic attachment - which, what the fuck, way to impose rigid hererocentric structures on friendship and affection in the first place) is outdated, simplistic, and puts people and gender in normative little boxes that should no longer even be thought valid in this day and age.
One thing that's worrying, though, is the possible treatment of Joan's portrayal. I still don't quite understand why they've taken out her military background, for instance - lots of pro-Elementary people are saying that it doesn't matter because canon!Watson wasn't a soldier (unlike BBC!John) but simply a medical surgeon, but the thing is, what matters isn't so much the army as it is the war. Canon!Watson got himself caught in one of the bloodiest battles of his time, in which he was one of the very few survivors in his regiment, and he returned to London damaged and nerve-rattled, sleepless, emaciated, and very poor. That, IMO, is one of the defining features of his character: he's already escaped death; he's been very ill from his wound taking infection in a moment of chaos and war, when there were very few chances he'd survive; he's extremely lonely at the beginning of STUD. It's possible that Elementary writers have managed to write in the same features in Joan, despite writing out an army background; but as it is the combination of genderswitching Joan and taking away her going at war, as though these two elements were incompatible, is making me a little wary.
Another criticism I've seen bandied about is the fact that part of the appeal of Holmes and Watson's (and by extension Sherlock and John's) relationship is the sliver of homoerotism that can be read between the lines of their close friendship, and that switching the gender of one of them means placing them in a more traditional and heterosexual relationship, and not addressing queer issues. The problem with that idea, though, is that no matter how much we shippers may wish they were in a relationship, they're, well, not, and every new adaptation that plays on this subtext only ever ends up reminding us of that fact.
(Speaking of, there are a lot of gay jokes in Sherlock, and I have to admit that in some ways they make me a little uncomfortable - I appreciate the "now people will definitely talk" kind of quips, because they do address the fact that yes, their relationship is sometimes ambiguous, but John's constant reminders that he is Not Gay, for instance, are starting to make me wince. I was glad when he dropped it in Hounds, to be honest (thank you, Mark Gatiss!). I'd rather the gay subtext in this show be the kind of subtext that makes John admit that Sherlock is the most important person in his life or that there are some things he wished he'd gotten to tell him before he supposedly saw him die, rather than the tiresome "no homo" jokes about how gay they look but how very ungay they truly are. In that regard, Moffat doesn't have a very good track record, at least in Sherlock (he's been doing pretty well with LGBT characters in Doctor Who, interestingly).)
So: Sherlock Holmes and John Watson aren't canonically in a relationship. Therefore, genderswapping John Watson into Joan Watson cannot ruin a completely non-existent homosexual relationship between them. Now, if Elementary does give us a romantic relationship between Holmes and Joan - that's a rather subtler problem, I think. If it happened (and this is completely hypothetical, you understand - I'm in no way saying that it will happen because they're suddenly of different genders, or that it's even a possibility if they want to stick to canon) it would certainly be disappointing that the first time any adaptation actually makes them canon is one where they're not both men (or both women - oh, I wish). However, there are three points that could counterbalance that disappointment:
- it could certainly smoothe the path for later adaptations with a relationship between a Holmes and a Watson of the same gender, which, while unfair, is sadly often how such things have to go these days;
- it would be very, very interesting to see whether the people who go up in arms at the very mention of homoerotism in Sherlock or in the Ritchie!verse and whine about how their precious, precious canon is not being respected (and yet have very little problem with Holmes in a romantic or sexual relationship with Irene) would be quite as offended, which would certainly point out the hypocrisy and latent homophobia in such statements;
- personally, I've shipped Holmes/Watson in every incarnation I've come across, and though I will be stunningly happy if Elementary's Holmes and Joan have an amazing platonic friendship, I will also probably ship them in fandom spaces (hell, what am I saying - I've already read fic of them), and would naturally be glad if my ship came to be canon.
I very, very much doubt that they'll be in a romantic relationship, in any case. No matter how much I'll end up shipping them in-fandom, I am always, always happy to see a completely platonic friendship between two people of opposite genders portrayed realistically and believably, and that, I hope, is what Elementary will give us.
There have been a certain amount of further criticism - which, uh:
- JML is apparently trying to mimic BC's Sherlock because he's wearing a scarf? Uh, yeah, why not, but also, what the fuck.
- "JLM's accent is too American" - except he's British. You'd think the people saying this have no idea that he and BC starred in Frankenstein together.
- "Holmes would never use Google! Deduction! Induction! He's too smart to use search engines!" Nah, he'd be too smart not to use them. Canon!Holmes had a massive amount of files, catalogues and archives in which he classified and categorized information; he often went to other people to get data; his street rats scoured London for intelligence he couldn't get on his own. BBC!Sherlock is shown using Google Weather in the very first episode. Of course a modern!Holmes would know how valuable Google can be, and would use it wisely.
- "Gregson is clearly a copycat of Lestrade." I actually have seen people argue this, guys.
- "Joan flinches away from the corpse in the safe room, which Watson would never do, because Watson is badass." Actually, canon!Watson often exhibits disgust or horror when faced with disfigured or mutilated corpses; it's a way of Doyle's to mark the difference between his own reaction and Holmes'. Morever, flinching away from the body of someone who's been brutally murdered is a perfectly human and natural reaction, not a sign of weakness.
- "Joan was clearly only genderswapped to be the token chick in a predominantly masculine show. This is evidenced by the fact that there is no Mrs Hudson." (From the Rant Post, of all places, where people usually know better.) This argument would actually hold water if out of the ten characters in the current IMDb cast list, half of them weren't women.
However, many of the arguments currently used to criticize a show that hasn't even aired yet are often absurd and without foundation. There is no clearly this show will be horrible because; there is no obviously it will suck because; Elementary is currently far, far from elementary. It's an unknown factor. We don't know. We just don't. I'm looking forward to actually discovering the show, of watching it if it's good, of dropping it if it's bad; I'm really, really hoping that it portrays them as the screwed-up, damaged people that they are, that it manages to give New York the same symbolic charge as London, that the Holmes/Watson relationship is as deep and heart-rending as it is in canon.
I'm also wishing that the people who criticize it will at some point stop addressing it as a direct comparison to Sherlock, and start comparing it to ACD's books: BBC!John may not flinch away from a crime scene, but that doesn't mean no Watson ever should; BBC!Sherlock may not appear to exhibit many signs of empathy, but that doesn't mean canon!Holmes never does. My god, at this point, both the people either hating on it or obsessively stanning it and bashing Sherlock are getting on my nerves.
tl;dr to end all tl;drs: