[ SECRET POST #4696 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4696 ⌋

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

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.













Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 07 secrets from Secret Submission Post #672.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 1 - 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

[type_wild]

I found the first season to be really something, certainly in comparison to most British detective shows having come before it. It was fresh and new and it stood out, and I liked it enough to re-watch it several times.

The second series, not so much, and by the time the third came around, I'd heard enough bad things about it to not even bother.

I'm still not sure whether the first series truly was that good in comparison or if it was just shiny and new, or if the later series were truly worse or just not having the benefit of the "wow"-factor that the first one had.

[(Anonymous)]

Heh, only a rewatch will answer that question! I watch a lot of British detective shows and I enjoyed the Arthur Conan Doyle stories as well as the older Jeremy Brett adaptation. The first season of Sherlock was very stylish, but even then I thought hmmmm, I'd like there to be more substance to go with all that style. I don't feel like I ever got it, tbh.

[(Anonymous)]

My personal take - after going back and re-watching the first season - is that it's 99% the first series being shiny and new. It's a little better than the 2nd series but not that much better.

[(Anonymous)]

I think a lot of why S1 seems so much weaker upon rewatch is because there were a lot of things in S1 that felt like they were deliberate, insightful character beats or were building towards something really interesting. But most of that stuff turned out to just be fluke. In the beginning it was an extremely easy show to read more into than was actually there. There were just so many things that seemed more significant and deliberate than they actually were.

[kulturschnepfe]

So much this. S 1 looked so shiny, so promising. Everything went downhill for me from S 2 onwards when they robustly chose style over substance. But I too like the Victorian era look from The Abominable Bride, even though the episode was rather meh.

[(Anonymous)]

+10000

[(Anonymous)]

it was an extremely easy show to read more into than was actually there

Like what? Other than shipping I don't remember reading a lot into it or hearing people discuss (with any seriousness) a lot of stuff they were reading into it. I didn't feel like I was being invited to solve some larger mystery.

[(Anonymous)]

NAYRT, but I think it was mostly the character beats and what the narrative was telling you about the characters as people and the nature of their relationships, with each other, but especially with themselves, and where that might be going.

All the characters felt like they had a lot of implied depth and a huge potential for growth arcs.

[(Anonymous)]

I think this about nails it. I love Sherlock Holmes adaptations and seeing what people do with the characters and I give quite a bit of leeway in interpretation. Especially modern interpretations. Season one had promise and yeah, I thought they were hints at more interesting, meaningful things to come but it was all really superificial. Character and relationship development gave way to the "humor" of Sherlock being an obnoxious jerk and John his victim. That's just not the Holmes/Watson dynamic I enjoy, and it's not in the spirit of the canon.