Thanks for the well thought out comments. It makes for a good, positive debate.

Regarding the “Lestrade” comment, I always viewed Lestrade as the main detective that Holmes interacted with, even though he did interact with others, like Gregson. I just assumed that the Elementary producers used Gregson over Lestrade because, well, Sherlock has that sher-locked down.

I think you’ve combined two of my points into one. I liked the secretary and the child serial killer, because they showed tongue-in-cheek insight into Sherlock. And, Doyle had a very tongue-in-cheek style. He typically used other characters to comment on the narrative or obvious plot devices. So, using the secretary to point out Sherlock’s faults is smart.

However, on a separate point, I know a lot of people, myself included panned the pilot for its simplicity. But, when I went back and re-read the plots I realized ‘ohmigosh, these plots are incredibly transparent.’ While Elementary’s cases are improving, it might have a few clunkers, but we shouldn’t pan the show stating it isn’t Holmes-worthy enough because ACD wrote a couple clunkers himself. But, I don’t believe the producers deliberately wrote bad cases to harken back to ACD, I think they were just getting their writing legs.

In terms of the tattoos, we do need to update characters for the modern-day. I like all of the recent versions like the RDJ version and BBC that took small aspects of Holmes’ study/personality and made it into a more prominent characteristic. When the first Sherlock movie came out, a reviewer stated that Holmes’ boxing was very un-Sherlock-like, even though Sherlock did box and a prize-fighter claimed Sherlock could’ve had a burgeoning career. The tattoos fit for me because they’re going for a hipster-esque Sherlock. Just like the Nicotine Patches in BBC’s Sherlock fits his character. Considering Sherlock studied tattoos in the past, it isn’t a stretch he might appropriate them.

True, Sherlock loves going undercover (but when would he take his shirt off going undercover?). However, I wouldn’t mind more scenes of a shirtless Johnny Miller

Thanks again for your thoughts and comments. They’re much appreciated!

I’m puzzled, though, by your reference to “final moments with both Watson and ‘Lestrade’.” You do know that Gregson is actually a Conan Doyle character, and not a CBS substitute for Lestrade?

Also, I’m not sure I understand your point about Conan Doyle’s style. Are you saying that making the mysteries very obvious (I’ve figured out every one at the first introduction of the villain, including guessing the child murders solution before the title sequence came on) is somehow intentional as a reference to a Conan Doyle disdain for mysteries in general?

One point I disagree with is the idea that Miller having all those tattoos somehow makes sense just because the original Holmes made a study of tattoos. He studied them just as he studied tobacco ash, because it revealed something about the person. As Holmes was proud of his ability to disguise himself, it seems extremely unlikely that he would mark his body in such a way as to reveal his identity. With those complex tattoos, Miller may as well have his name printed down his arm and across his back. Very un-Holmes-like.