[ SECRET POST #3954 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3954 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.








Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 33 secrets from Secret Submission Post #566.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

People say that Moffat is problematic and I've seen some things that he's said that are yeah, kind of problematic. But I like Sherlock and I don't spend all that much time thinking about producers.

[(Anonymous)]

I can't speak for DW, but my issue with Sherlock isn't necessarily that it's problematic (though I don't disagree that it is), my issue is that it's very poorly written. Even the first two seasons which fans insist are great are just...so so. They probably only look good compared to the Christmas special and series 3.

[(Anonymous)]

ikr sherlock is just really, really, really bad. im sorry it is. this is coming from someone who never knew who moffat was and who's never seen doctor who, it's simply a crap show.

and i haven't even watched season 3.
i don't fault anyone for liking it (i did watch two seasons of it! it's certainly entertaining), but im really suspicious of people denying the flaws

[(Anonymous)]

What kind of crazy standards you have that an entertaining show you were able to watch for two seasons is really really bad to you?

[(Anonymous)]

nayrt but to be fair, "entertaining" isn't the same thing as high quality.

[(Anonymous)]

'able to watch' is a weird phrase that covers a lot of ground

bbc seasons are so short that the first two are probably less less airtime than half a season of some american shows, esp dramas

some people are willing to invest that much time in something they've been recommended, hoping it will get better

or they might be mildly entertained enough to keep watching at the time but feel like the show falls apart if they think about it at all, or whatever

personally I barely made it through first episode. I don't usually go around criticizing it bc that's probably unfair, lots of decent/good shows have rocky pilots, but if people who haven't watched it can't criticize it, and people who HAVE watched it also can't criticize it, because it was ~entertaining enough~ to keep watching....then no one is allowed to assess any TV show as a bad, ever? so this is not a useful objection

and people who did not find sherlock remotely entertaining definitely exist

[(Anonymous)]

the other two already made excellent points. i do have high standards, but for me the biggest problem was that i could see the director's hand in everything. everything in that show is so incredibly staged, the lines are so incredibly hamfisted (i will BURN the heart... out of you!!!), every shot in that show reminds me that This Is A Show. there was never a moment where i got lost in the story and the moments i did have where i felt empathy for the characters i credit to the poor actors that i think made some really atrocious writing actually work.

i wouldn't have watched the show alone, but a friend of mine really liked it and watched it together with me, which i think helped a lot with my enjoyment! being able to complain to someone right away helps not building up frustration.

[a_potato]

Fistbump, anon. Sherlock is...hoo boy. I couldn't make it past the second episode. What an incredible disappointment.

[(Anonymous)]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkoGBOs5ecM