(Some pun involving the word "Holmes")

This was originally going to be a quick take, but I realized it's not actually that quick.

There has been a recent spat of Sherlock Holmes, and of this, The Murloc is quite pleased. Seeing as how she is the proud owner of the complete Basil Rathbone Sherlock Holmes collection (digitally remastered, of course), and any Holmes is good Holmes for her.

The Detecting Murloc at 221B Baker Street, London, England, in this 2004 file photo.

A quick roundup of the recent Holmeses:


The Guy Ritchie/Robert Downey Jr. Holmes movies. The first was good and enjoyable. The second should have been, but I came away with an 'eh' due to reasons I shall explain in a bit.

The BBC "Sherlock" series with Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman. Set in modern-day London. Holmes is an egomaniacal narcissist. Enjoyable, but glaciers have been known to be made faster. I did the math and it takes them about two days to make one minute of film (three 90-minute episodes every 18 months).

The NBC "Elementary" series with Jonny Lee Miller and Lucy Liu as Joan Watson. Set in modern-day New York. Holmes is an egomaniacal narcissist. Much better than I expected, but probably the weakest of the three. Honestly, if you decide to make a modern-day Sherlock Holmes adaptation, in which Holmes is an egomaniacal narcissist, you're going to be compared to the outstanding BBC production.

*Spoilers from here on in*

Now, to understand my disappointment with the second Ritchie/Downey movie, you have to understand Moriarty in the BBC series, and to understand Moriarty, you have to understand Holmes. In BBC's "Sherlock", Holmes is basically a sociopath. He doesn't really (well, it turns out he does, deep down, but it appears otherwise for most of the show) care about other people. He's not solving crimes for the sake of making society a better place, but instead simply because he enjoys a challenge. It's simply a puzzle to him, and the lives involved aren't really important. Moriarty, in "Sherlock" is identical, except instead of solving the crimes, he commits them. His favorite puzzle is trying to figure out how to commit perfect crimes. While Holmes hires himself out as a detecting consultant, Moriarty hires himself as a criminal consultant. They are identical to each other, and are on opposite sides not because they care about the sides, but because they care about beating the other guy in a battle of wits. The final battle, then, at the end of the second season is between these two minds who are simply trying to defeat each other for the sake of defeating each other. The means are almost irrelevant. Moriarty's final grand ultimate plan, then, is not some great crime for his own benefit, but simply to defeat Holmes: to completely and thoroughly discredit him in the eyes of everyone, including his friends.

(In the end, Moriarty, essentially sets up Holmes: he must either assent to Moriarty's deception and discredit himself, or Moriarty will kill his friends. To make sure Holmes has no other way out, Moriarty kills himself, thus showing that to him, defeating Holmes is more important than life itself. Holmes goes along with it, and renounces himself to Watson, then (apparently) kills himself to save his friends' lives, showing that, in the end, he values people above defeating Moriarty, and proving he is the Good Guy. Of course, Holmes being smarter than Moriarty, cheated both Moriarty and death.)

Now, in the Ritchie/Downey movie A Game of Shadows, we have a similar battle of wits between Holmes and Moriarty. However, at the end we learn Moriarty's plot: to start the Great World War (this is ca. 1890), so he can sell weapons to both sides and make lots of money.

Yawn.

Yes, folks, the super-smart super-villains grand scheme is to make money. And the best way he can think of is an incredibly convoluted plan to start a war. Moriarty is simply a moustache-twirling corporateer, bent on selling out the 99% or something. Contrast to BBC's Moriarty who cares nothing for personal riches, and is only interested in winning the game. Which is more unique and interesting?

We haven't seen Moriarty in "Elementary" yet, so we'll have to stay posted on how they handle the character.

No, the best comparison, I think of "Elementary" to "Sherlock" is in the character of Watson (and Watson's influence on Holmes), and it's a comparison which, I think, comes out more favorably to "Elementary". Martin Freeman's John Watson is, when you get right down to it, the comic relief. He is the every man who is there to highlight how brilliant Holmes is. We get to see and be bedazzled by Holmes' intellect through Watson's eyes. He doesn't ever contribute much to the cases. He's just the on-screen version of us asking, "OK, Holmes, how did you figure that one out?" because it would be awkward to have Sherlock turn to the camera periodically and explain himself. Make no mistake, Martin Freeman plays the character well, and it is an important character. But he doesn't normally contribute to the cases in a meaningful way (except for saving the day once or twice).

Lucy Liu's Joan Watson, by contrast, is fast becoming an intellectual partner to Holmes. She starts as Holmes' sober companion, then quits that job to become his partner in detecting crime. His protégé, so to speak. She is smart and intelligent, and in more than one episode, solves the case, or notices a critical clue that Holmes misses. She is actually meaningful to the team.

And that mention right there, of Watson as Holmes sober companion, introduces another comparison: that of the character of Holmes himself. Cumberbatch's Holmes doesn't really have any significant character flaws (aside from his narcissism and sociopathy). Well, no flaws that really harm him or get in the way of his ability to reach his goals. In some ways, he's Superman without the kryptonite. He's a near-omniscient (or omniscient-seeming) man whose only obstacle is the hidden nature of the clues. The one time where he seemed vulnerable and afraid, it turned out to be just a hallucinogenic gas ("The Hounds of Baskerville"). His grating personality only ever helps him on the case.

In contrast, Jonny Lee Miller's Holmes is a recovering drug addict, who spent time in rehab, and requires a constant companion and periodic drug tests to avoid relapsing. He is narcissistic, like Cumberbatch's Holmes, but unlike Cumberbatch's Holmes, his narcissism is a front. He knows he has limits.  In a recent episode, Holmes confessed to Watson that he wanted her to remain as his partner because it makes him better. He could think more clearly and was better at solving crimes due to her presence. That's the type of humility that Cumberbatch's Holmes wouldn't ever show. He has a vulnerability which, in my opinion, makes him a much more interesting and less-grating character.

When The Murloc and I decided to check out "Elementary", we were expecting a stupid American rip-off, which only had the "Holmes" name added on to drum up viewers. And it is, to an extent, that. The writing is not as good as "Sherlock", and Miller just does not play a genius as well as Cumberbatch. But in a few key ways, the characters in "Elementary" are simply more human and more interesting.