we didn't meet because of fate, but rather probability

[frith_in_thorns]

Soooo, yesterday evening I sat down to type up some of my November fic, and put Elementary on in the background because I had been meaning to get around to watching it. And then I accidentally most of the aired episodes, and barely any typing up. Oops

Comments

[winterstar95]

Okay maybe I am an idiot and I shouldn't actually write this but my whole belief is that the US version of Sherlock, Elementary actually went with a female Watson so they wouldn't have to deal with the gay UST. Really, I refuse to watch it because Watson is a gal. Sorry, I don't mean to burst your bubble. Maybe it is good, and I hope it is. But I have my doubts about why Watson is a girl.

Slinking away now.......

[frith_in_thorns]

But they're perfectly happy with the gay UST in everything else. It's become almost expected, now, having the formula be two main guys that they can be really shippy with while reminding the viewers every now and then that they have girlfriends, guys, they're totally straight. And playing up to slash fandom on things like Twitter and in interviews, but with no expectation of ever changing the status quo.

That's not being radical and pushing for new things. That's trying to have your cake and eat it.

So, while that may well have been a consideration, and I have thought about that, having Watson be a woman, and a woman of colour, is actually a really big deal. And that's why I posted the quote above: they're not going "down" in progressiveness, they're going "up", because that supposed progressiveness was never actually there. If someone somewhere was willing to stand up and say, "yes, we're making a Sherlock and Watson who are in a queer relationship" that would be a massive deal, but they aren't. And they're not getting ally cookies

[winterstar95]

I think I would be more excited about it, if I didn't have my sneaking suspicions about the reasons and the fact that they were trying to make it different from the BBC Sherlock. If so, why couldn't they have taken the step and made Sherlock/Watson a gay couple? You know? Or how about if Watson is a gal make her lesbian? Now that would be an interesting twist.

But really I don't think it really should be about sexual orientation. It is really about the case and the brilliance of Sherlock with Watson as his foil and balance. So I suppose it really doesn't matter who you throw in the roles because it isn't a love story.

[veleda_k]

Elementary actually went with a female Watson so they wouldn't have to deal with the gay UST

But how would that benefit them? The two other recent Holmes adaptions, the BBC series and the Ritchie movies, both dialed the homoerotic subtext way up (but always dancing away at the last minute, of course; actual gay people are icky), and they've both been very successful. The BBC series is getting a third series, and if I remember correctly, they're making a third movie. Clearly, teasing the viewers with the possibility of gay is not ratings suicide. Quite the opposite, apparently.

And all that gay UST is in the eye of the beholder anyway. I don't see a bit of subtext between the original characters, so I see no reason why UST would have to be a part of any adaption.

All the BBC series and the Ritchie movies do is prioritize male homosocial bonds, while still maintaining the trappings of heterosexuality. That's pretty much the least revolutionary thing ever.

[winterstar95]

I don't want to run away with frith's journal post, but I just think that yes the gay UST is what the other two version do and they don't step over the line (which is irritating). I just think that if Elementary wanted to be really really original then they would have had the gay UST, and then finally went to gay relationship. That would have been more revolutionary then making Watson a woman regardless of what race. I just don't see Watson as a female. Give me REAL women roles with strong leads and leave the boy stuff to the boys.

And I will shut up with respect to frith because this is not my journal and I shouldn't air my issues here. Bye!

[frith_in_thorns]

Uh, why is solving crimes "boy stuff" that shouldn't be done by "real" women???

I honestly don't know where you're coming from with this, I'm afraid :S

[veleda_k]

I was wondering the same thing. Is because Watson is genderswapped and therefore not a "real" woman? Because in Elementary she is a woman. She just is. Adaptations change things.

I don't get it. There's a Sherlock Holmes adaptation in which they're all mice. Why is changing species acceptable, but changing one character's gender too much to believe? I don't like living in a world where talking mice are less fantastic than a woman solving crimes.

[winterstar95]

Yeah not my thing with the mice. Sorry, just think that there are some things that are sacred in literature. Mice don't help me out with Sherlock at all. Not acceptable to me...don't mind if it is to you.

[frith_in_thorns]

I'd argue that bringing a story which was very much an essense of its time, and had so many pieces of Victorian London in it, forwards 200 years is a far bigger change than making Watson a woman. How are women so intrinsically different to men that they represent a bigger story upheaval than mobile phones, the internet, blogging, sniper rifles, etc?

[winterstar95]

I think it has to do with the fact that the powers that be may think that in order to make it more sellable to woman you have to change it up to put a woman in the part so there is a possibility of a love story. Why is it that there has to be a love story? (Okay I am not saying that is what they are doing but it bothers me because you know they will go there - eventually). But really I think there are things that are acceptable to some and not acceptable to others. Sherlock and Watson are iconic and should be two guys in my head. Not a guy and a girl and surely not mice.

[frith_in_thorns]

But all the evidence shows that TPTB don't think women are sellable as characters. This is the first blog post I could think of quickly. Otherwise half of all the TV casts would be women. We'd have more than one female FBI agent in White Collar, for instance. (Imagine Diana and Jones both being women!) More than one female Avenger. Shows like Grimm, where at the point I couldn't be bothered watching any more there were only three women in the entirity of Portland, all minor love interests, would not be so successful.

And the "men and women can't just be friends" thing is just categorically not true. And besides, you're saying you want two men as the leads so that there's the possibility of a love story - how is that different?

[winterstar95]

Ha! You are right of course. It does sound like that, doesn't it. But I actually don't need to have a romance between Sherlock and Watson. Not necessary at all for me. But if they are going to play with UST then I think they should take the leap and resolve it.

So, no I don't need a love story.

Maybe my dislike for the whole female Watson comes from the fact that we need more original material where the strong main character is actually a woman. Instead of stealing from literature that is iconically male, why isn't there more source material with female STRONG characters who do NOT need a love interest. Why does it always have to end up in a love story for a woman story? Why?

[veleda_k]

Why can't we have both? Why can't we have original stories and reimagining of old ones? And I don't think that Holmes and Watson are "iconically male," at least much less than they are "iconically Victorian" which has stopped no one.

Reinterpreting is not stealing. People have set The Tempest in Outer space, Oliver Twist with cats and dogs in New York City, The Count of Monte Cristo in the Hamptons (also with a woman!), and so many more.

Hmm, I wonder if there was this much hoopla when Sarah Bernhardt played Hamlet. You don't get much more iconic than Shakespeare. But somehow the audience of 1899 dealt with it. Why does it seem we haven't come very far in terms of "appropriate" roles for women?

[frith_in_thorns]

This, basically. It's not like the original story is getting used up. (If that were possible the vampire craze would have run out of steam way before Twilight.)

On a side note: one of my all-time favourite pieces of television is Battlestar Galactica, which is reimagined from the original BSG series. Several of the main characters have been genderswapped to women, and it is The Most Awesome Thing.

Also, at the moment there is a very noticable fear of making new things - studios would much rather churn out adaptation after adaptation, not least because of the guranteed fan base (there definitely are citations for this, wheredidIputthem). And many of the stories which are getting retold and retold didn't have many women in them to start with. If this unequal gender balance is sacred, we're never going to get women in things.

Trying to pitch an entirely new thing which has women as leads... is not something which has great prospects.

ETA: This wasn't the article I was looking for, but is very interesting reading on this subject: Why

[veleda_k]

In other new, I would love to read that longer Elementary meta you mentioned in the main post.

(Why did I take me so long to start watching the show? I've just watched the pilot today, and the CBS website only has 1x01, 1x08, and 1x09. I hate missing episodes. ;_;)

[winterstar95]

I guess I am just not making my point clear enough. Which is what we've already said a few times. TPTB should understand that women are out there and should sell to women just like they sell to men. That means they should sell books and all forms of media that allows women to be strong independent characters than re-imagining a character from another source would not be as necessary. There are VERY few stories out there where we have an iconically strong woman who doesn't end up in love and the story de-evolves to a love story and what she should do