Fall 2012 TV First Impressions
Spoilers ahoy for episodes 1-3 of Revolution and 1-2 of Elementary
Revolution
There's so much to like in this Abrams/Kripke production, it's a shame the main character is utterly unlikable. You could make a Revolution drinking game with just one rule: take a drink every time Charlie says something obnoxiously self-righteous or impossibly naive. You'd be schnockered by the first commercial break. She's Sam Winchester, if Sam were still 14 when he was 20.
Some of this is the fault of the storytelling; most of the stuff that's supposed to make Charlie cool and likeable is told to us, but hardly shown: she has an unwavering commitment to her brother (whom she drags off in the woods to go exploring rather than sticking closer to home and hunting, where it would be safer?), she's a badass hunter (but I don't think we even see her fire a shot with her bow until ep three). The first episodes have also seemed somewhat inconsistent in her knowledge of the world: in the first episode, she's begging her father to go find other communities of good people and denies the danger of being outside her community, but by ep three she's talking about the Monroe Militia men who came to rape the women in her community. No one who experienced that would be naive about their world or its risks. Maybe we were supposed to take away that Charlie is longing for a better life (a longing that will eventually lead her to joining the rebels), but there were more clear ways of stating that, which don't involve teenage hissy fits. I think the writers/producers (or perhaps their PTB masters) thought Charlie would be more appealing as a naive young ingenue, always seeing the bright side of life. Or maybe they were afraid that if Charlie were a cynical young woman beaten down by her role in the depressing dystopian future, Suzanne Collins would be on their door with a lawsuit.
The adults who populate the Revolution universe, however, are fascinating. Per usual, Abrams/Kripke have decided that antagonists with understandable motives and agendas are preferable to stock villains; I can easily see why Captain Neville thinks the Monroe Republic is better than the chaos that came before (and indeed, why Miles Matheson thought it was, at least at one point). Aaron Pittman is not, as I had feared, merely there to supply comic relief as the butt of tubby geek jokes, and the moment Maggie served the road bandits poisoned whiskey, she won a place in my heart. But by far, Uncle Badass is my favorite.
The story is also intriguing: making the loss of power a man-made phenomena gives us a good reason why it hasn't been restored in the past fifteen years but is still a possibility. The rise of multiple semi-sovereign states with only rudimentary political structures and the return of older forms of justice and civilization (conscription, taxes in the form of food, punishment by work camp, etc.) are likely outcomes of such a disaster, and potentially rich storylines.
If I could give the producers one piece of advice (apart from "Grow Charlie's character. Now."), it would be to go a bit grittier. They're in a ten pm time slot, but writing (and casting) like they're an eight pm family drama. I'm not saying sex it up, but rather, don't be afraid to portray the world your characters are describing to each other. It would get me more invested in the story.
Plot/Scenario: A
Character Work: B-
Elementary
I watch five CBS crime dramas every week. Five. Clearly, I don't need to be sold on the format. I certainly didn't need CBS to take the story about a former detective who's a recovering addict just out of rehab and his sober companion and slap the names Holmes and Watson on them in order for me to tune in. As a life-long Holmes fan, that rather upped my expectations; BBC's brilliantly executed vision of a modern Holmes set a standard that's probably impossible for CBS to match in a 22 episode format. So, I'm trying to look at the show without considering Sherlock or Granada Holmes or any other source material, and take it on its own mertis, however, that's hard because Sherlock Holmes has so much cultural baggage. That baggage is why CBS decided to try to latch on to the Holmes name rather than launch its own series, but can have its downsides.
Thus far, I'm not impressed with either of the main characters. Sherlock feels like he was assembled by someone who'd only seen Sherlock, the Downey movies and House. Acerbity is not, in fact, a key element of Holmes's personality, nor was he a slovenly eyesore. Holmes never used to the point of addiction, and probably would have been ashamed of sponging off his father's money (it's likely there wasn't much family money in any case, and it's implied that though his father was a gentleman, what money his family may have had was either tied up in land or had been spent by prior generations). If there were anything else about Holmes that shone out of their portrayal of the character, I could forgive the Elementary producers, much as I forgive Moffat, Gatiss, Richie, etc., their choices. But apart from these personality points stolen from other pastiches, I don't see much that signals this is Sherlock Holmes. IMO, his deductions thus far have been flimsy and far between. He doesn't seem isolated because of his intellect so much as isolated because he used to be an addict.
In virtually all versions of the story, Holmes is humanized by Watson. Alas, I'm not yet getting that vibe from CBS's interpretation. Lucy Liu always leaves me cold. I'm not convinced she can act; she seems to have a single mono-expression she wears for all occassions. I'd actually buy her more as Holmes. And for someone who's emotional setting seems to be almost exclusively tuned to "bratty," I don't understand why Holmes caves to her direction so easily (for example, leaving the disastrous interrogation in episode one, or fetching Watson a bag of chips in episode two). I'm not saying it couldn't be done, I just don't understand why this Watson evokes such a response from this Holmes at this point in their acquaintanceship (unlike BBC's Sherlock, this Sherlock doesn't seem to care if anyone likes him or if he's committed some terrible faux pas--which come to think of it, he doesn't do very often, perhaps only when Watson needs to be shown in a good light or have an audience-enlightening side conversation).
Despite CBS having 22 episodes to fill out their characters, my first impression of Holmes is small. Contra Moffat and Gatiss, who have made high adventure the signature of their series, this Holmes seems like the sort of detective you might find in any CBS crime drama. I don't yet have any inkling that he could defeat a crazed home invader armed with a scimitar, write his own internet monograph on cigar ash (has he shown any inclination to science yet?), or wrestle Moriarty off a cliff using his tenth-degree Baritsu skills. To steal a concept from my slash friends, thus far, this series feels like the television equivalent of an Any Two Guys story.
The good news for CBS is I'm not most people. Most Americans haven't seen Sherlock or the Granada series, and have probably only read a few of the canon stories, perhaps in middle school. Maybe they saw one of the Downey movies. They know a lot about the Great Detective through general cultural transmission, and they may well be ripe for a reboot. I'll probably keep watching because I'd like to know more about their Troubled Pasts, and well, I'll be recording CBS anyway...
Plot/Scenario: B-
Character Work: C
Revolution
There's so much to like in this Abrams/Kripke production, it's a shame the main character is utterly unlikable. You could make a Revolution drinking game with just one rule: take a drink every time Charlie says something obnoxiously self-righteous or impossibly naive. You'd be schnockered by the first commercial break. She's Sam Winchester, if Sam were still 14 when he was 20.
Some of this is the fault of the storytelling; most of the stuff that's supposed to make Charlie cool and likeable is told to us, but hardly shown: she has an unwavering commitment to her brother (whom she drags off in the woods to go exploring rather than sticking closer to home and hunting, where it would be safer?), she's a badass hunter (but I don't think we even see her fire a shot with her bow until ep three). The first episodes have also seemed somewhat inconsistent in her knowledge of the world: in the first episode, she's begging her father to go find other communities of good people and denies the danger of being outside her community, but by ep three she's talking about the Monroe Militia men who came to rape the women in her community. No one who experienced that would be naive about their world or its risks. Maybe we were supposed to take away that Charlie is longing for a better life (a longing that will eventually lead her to joining the rebels), but there were more clear ways of stating that, which don't involve teenage hissy fits. I think the writers/producers (or perhaps their PTB masters) thought Charlie would be more appealing as a naive young ingenue, always seeing the bright side of life. Or maybe they were afraid that if Charlie were a cynical young woman beaten down by her role in the depressing dystopian future, Suzanne Collins would be on their door with a lawsuit.
The adults who populate the Revolution universe, however, are fascinating. Per usual, Abrams/Kripke have decided that antagonists with understandable motives and agendas are preferable to stock villains; I can easily see why Captain Neville thinks the Monroe Republic is better than the chaos that came before (and indeed, why Miles Matheson thought it was, at least at one point). Aaron Pittman is not, as I had feared, merely there to supply comic relief as the butt of tubby geek jokes, and the moment Maggie served the road bandits poisoned whiskey, she won a place in my heart. But by far, Uncle Badass is my favorite.
The story is also intriguing: making the loss of power a man-made phenomena gives us a good reason why it hasn't been restored in the past fifteen years but is still a possibility. The rise of multiple semi-sovereign states with only rudimentary political structures and the return of older forms of justice and civilization (conscription, taxes in the form of food, punishment by work camp, etc.) are likely outcomes of such a disaster, and potentially rich storylines.
If I could give the producers one piece of advice (apart from "Grow Charlie's character. Now."), it would be to go a bit grittier. They're in a ten pm time slot, but writing (and casting) like they're an eight pm family drama. I'm not saying sex it up, but rather, don't be afraid to portray the world your characters are describing to each other. It would get me more invested in the story.
Plot/Scenario: A
Character Work: B-
Elementary
I watch five CBS crime dramas every week. Five. Clearly, I don't need to be sold on the format. I certainly didn't need CBS to take the story about a former detective who's a recovering addict just out of rehab and his sober companion and slap the names Holmes and Watson on them in order for me to tune in. As a life-long Holmes fan, that rather upped my expectations; BBC's brilliantly executed vision of a modern Holmes set a standard that's probably impossible for CBS to match in a 22 episode format. So, I'm trying to look at the show without considering Sherlock or Granada Holmes or any other source material, and take it on its own mertis, however, that's hard because Sherlock Holmes has so much cultural baggage. That baggage is why CBS decided to try to latch on to the Holmes name rather than launch its own series, but can have its downsides.
Thus far, I'm not impressed with either of the main characters. Sherlock feels like he was assembled by someone who'd only seen Sherlock, the Downey movies and House. Acerbity is not, in fact, a key element of Holmes's personality, nor was he a slovenly eyesore. Holmes never used to the point of addiction, and probably would have been ashamed of sponging off his father's money (it's likely there wasn't much family money in any case, and it's implied that though his father was a gentleman, what money his family may have had was either tied up in land or had been spent by prior generations). If there were anything else about Holmes that shone out of their portrayal of the character, I could forgive the Elementary producers, much as I forgive Moffat, Gatiss, Richie, etc., their choices. But apart from these personality points stolen from other pastiches, I don't see much that signals this is Sherlock Holmes. IMO, his deductions thus far have been flimsy and far between. He doesn't seem isolated because of his intellect so much as isolated because he used to be an addict.
In virtually all versions of the story, Holmes is humanized by Watson. Alas, I'm not yet getting that vibe from CBS's interpretation. Lucy Liu always leaves me cold. I'm not convinced she can act; she seems to have a single mono-expression she wears for all occassions. I'd actually buy her more as Holmes. And for someone who's emotional setting seems to be almost exclusively tuned to "bratty," I don't understand why Holmes caves to her direction so easily (for example, leaving the disastrous interrogation in episode one, or fetching Watson a bag of chips in episode two). I'm not saying it couldn't be done, I just don't understand why this Watson evokes such a response from this Holmes at this point in their acquaintanceship (unlike BBC's Sherlock, this Sherlock doesn't seem to care if anyone likes him or if he's committed some terrible faux pas--which come to think of it, he doesn't do very often, perhaps only when Watson needs to be shown in a good light or have an audience-enlightening side conversation).
Despite CBS having 22 episodes to fill out their characters, my first impression of Holmes is small. Contra Moffat and Gatiss, who have made high adventure the signature of their series, this Holmes seems like the sort of detective you might find in any CBS crime drama. I don't yet have any inkling that he could defeat a crazed home invader armed with a scimitar, write his own internet monograph on cigar ash (has he shown any inclination to science yet?), or wrestle Moriarty off a cliff using his tenth-degree Baritsu skills. To steal a concept from my slash friends, thus far, this series feels like the television equivalent of an Any Two Guys story.
The good news for CBS is I'm not most people. Most Americans haven't seen Sherlock or the Granada series, and have probably only read a few of the canon stories, perhaps in middle school. Maybe they saw one of the Downey movies. They know a lot about the Great Detective through general cultural transmission, and they may well be ripe for a reboot. I'll probably keep watching because I'd like to know more about their Troubled Pasts, and well, I'll be recording CBS anyway...
Plot/Scenario: B-
Character Work: C