[ SECRET POST #4726 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4726 ⌋

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

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.
















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 36 secrets from Secret Submission Post #677.
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)]

As someone whose OTP was Johnlock for like seven years…I still can’t really agree with you on this.

I thought the first episode was a very strong start, and judging purely off the first episode I could’ve seen (and did envision) the show becoming a strong, long-running show with a case-of-the-week structure overlaid by season-long overarching plots and character threads. But I can’t say I’m a big fan of what we got instead.

That said, I don’t know if I would characterize what happened with Sherlock as “the show runners not knowing what to do with their ideas.” I’m more inclined to characterize it as the show runners actively favoring a very surface-y and bombastic style of story-telling: exhaustingly high in drama and intrigue but almost nauseatingly ungrounded.

[(Anonymous)]

This. I'm a big Sherlock Holmes fan and was really looking forward to this series. First episode was a good start, and thought the leads were very well cast. I was hoping for a smartly written, modern AU with strong storylines for each episode and maybe a lighter hand on the longer arcs. That't not what I got. The storylines got weaker. There was too much Moriarty. I'm not a fan of the "Sherlock is an asshole because he doesn't know how to be a decent human being" characterization. And it was a criminal waste of Irene Adler.

It quickly became clear to me that the showrunners/writers were writing a very different version of Holmes and Watson that had almost nothing to do with the characters, but they weren't interested in writing interesting mysteries, either. Lots of flash and style, no substance.

And then series 4 happened, so...

[greghousesgf]

are you me?

[(Anonymous)]

exhaustingly high in drama and intrigue but almost nauseatingly ungrounded.

+1,000,000

[(Anonymous)]

Even the first episode wasn't that great. The pacing was wonky, it had dramabait fakeouts that went nowhere (mycroft interlude), and Sherlock's parody of House's parody of book Holmes was overwrought and unpleasant. Also, I called the cabbie twist like 30 minutes into the 90 minute episode, and waiting around for an hour for the so-called supergenius to catch up was boring as shit.

[(Anonymous)]

Eh, YMMV I guess. The pacing felt fine to me. I liked mycroft's intro, specifically because it was mycroft and not Moriarty. I liked the character of mycroft and the odd, somewhat sickly dynamic with sherlock that was initially set up in that scene. I LOVED the initial depiction of sherlock as this vastly intelligent but emotionally stunted and psychologically tangled asshole who's so much more lost and messed up than he himself is aware of. I just didnt like where the show went with his character - namely, nowhere at all.

The cabbie being the killer was obvious, I just didnt care because I was in it for the characters. Plus I already knew going in that it had initially been a 45 min pilot where sherlock solved it in Angelo's, but the BBC decided they wanted the whole thing to be twice as long so Moffat and Gatiss had to scramble to restructure. So I was metatextually amused by the practical aspects of expanding a 45 min plot into a movie length plot. I've always liked that kind of thing.

[(Anonymous)]

honestly I have zero patience for the Bunny Ears Asshole character. I didn't like it very much on House, and House did it better, actually engaging with what addiction does to a person and their relationships (not to mention chronic pain). Sherlock's stunted damaged asshole was doing a shallow version of a old cliche that I was already tired of. Just like the show had big flashy drama over solid story, it had big flashy JerkPain over solid character.

And the metatextual re-writing wankery might be interesting from a process standpoint, but that doesn't actually make the end result good.

[(Anonymous)]

Just like the show had big flashy drama over solid story, it had big flashy JerkPain over solid character.

I would agree with this from a current perspective. But from having just watched the first ep, it was not just possible, but highly possible that the the character was going to grow and deepen in a really great way. I am eternally here for prickly, insensitive, hostile characters going through the long, painful, complicated process of learning to be better people. Eternally here for it, I tell you.

What I'm NOT here for is asshole characters being continually glorified for their assholery and treated - by the narrative - like they're smarter and better than all the pleebs who care about other people's feelings and make the effort not to be hurtful.

the metatextual re-writing wankery might be interesting from a process standpoint, but that doesn't actually make the end result good.

Like I said, YMMV. The plot for its own sake is so secondary to me, especially in a first episode of something. Give me characters that I feel for and that I deeply want to see more of and the rest can be whatever. The plot of the first episode excelled at it's number on purpose for me, which was allowing us to learn about the characters - how they think, what they'll do, what they won't do, etc.

[(Anonymous)]

The killer was a cabbie in the original story.