Elementary Review - 'Do it yourself'

Review of 'Do it Yourself' or 'The Problem at Thor Bridge'
Lots of things in common with the two.
An abusive relationship.
Revenge crime.
Not actually directing the blame towards the spouse, but instead the lover.
In both cases it was the jilted lover that plotted the revenge and setup.
Both were done with guns.

I really liked this episode, but missed Watson's involvement more, but I still believe that lack of involvement was because the writers are still trying to develop good back stories.

I am finding it hard to imagine why others are not liking this show very much. Yea, sure, it has it's faults and there  could be lots more canonical references, but over all I think it is a good show.

Throughout the canon we enjoy Holmes's deductions, and for the most part, those deductions are rather subtle and many times have nothing to do with the cases the stories are about. Many of them come in the opening pages, and usually at Watson's expense.
Very few of these deduction are grand and showy, but are observations made by Holmes of all the things he sees, that others miss.
I really think this show is doing a good job, just like in the canon, of making these deductions almost seem commonplace once they are explained to the viewer (reader). Millers delivery helps get this impression across.
And just like in the canon, Watson's medical knowledge often comes into play helping Holmes come up with answers.

I do agree that things still have room to improve. I would love to see each episode cover one of the cases in the canon instead just passing references.
I would love to see the drug addiction become less of a theme, but then again, until Watson finds another reason to tag along, they need that back story.

I think this show is as good as 'Sherlock' (gasp!!!), especially the writing (another gasp!!!) and here is why.

The performances of Mr. Cumberbatch and Mr. Freeman are what is carrying Sherlock at the moment,  (both I agree should get very high marks for this by the way). And I hope they get the writing to keep it going.
But because of the writing, the character of Holmes has almost become cartoonish. Moriarty is way over the  top and very un-canonical.
One big differences is that 'Sherlock' was always expected to be great, and started out with the promise, but because of the writing is not doing that and must now prove it deserves that expectation. While Elementary was never expected to be great, and is proving to be almost as good, and just needs to get a little better.

A number of years ago, when we hosted Brett in St. Louis, you could see vast differences between the Dr Who people and the Sherlockians present that weekend. And I think the same thing is happening with Sherlock.

One reviewer commented on Millers' Holmes sitting on a toilet in the last episode and saying how unnecessary it was. While I would suggest that, in Sherlock, where Holmes goes to the palace in nothing but a sheet is far more out of line and un-
Sherlock.

'Elementary' is not, at least yet, relaying on grandiose plot lines to get our attention, such as naked high price hookers, sword welding Holmes rescuing Adlers and leaps off of buildings ala' Reichenbach to keep our attention. Sherlock has almost fallen into a Guy Richie phase where we are not sure if it is going to be slapstick or mystery.

I was thinking the other day; 'Sherlock' is sort of for the highbrow Shelockians, the ones most likely to get printed in the BSJ, (maybe, almost,'I think it must be a great show, because everyone says it is').While 'Elementary' is for us Strand readers who wish we could get printed in the BSJ.

I really like 'Sherlock' and still have high hopes for it, but I also really like 'Elementary' and also have high hopes for it.