fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2433 ]

05. http://i.imgur.com/jUJrH68.jpg

Meh. Different people, like different things. I don't like Brad Pitt and think his movies suck. Other people like him and his movies because people like different things.

Oh god Brad Pitt drives me batshit and always has. Though not as badly as Cruise.

(no subject)

kaijinscendre - 2013-08-31 20:26 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2013-08-31 22:08 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

kaijinscendre - 2013-08-31 22:21 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2013-08-31 22:54 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2013-08-31 23:08 (UTC) - Expand

I'm with you OP. But to each their own.

Some people also find him sexy. To each their taste.

I think many people gloss over the problems with the episodes because the last one in the season is always amazing.

Don't try to make sense of it. Forget it, dude, it's fandom.

I feel the same way about Lost, Firefly, and Battlestar Galactica (the new one). People went on and on and on about how amazing they were. I was underwhelmed and disappointed when I checked them out.

*shrugs* To each their own.

I kind of do not understand how people can think that one or another TV series is amazeballs!!!11 and made by a bunch of geniuses. TV things, especially long TV things, are made to be aired. They don't get enough people interested=they are cancelled. This means a lot of cliches, lazy tropes, fanservice, and so on. This is not bad, but it certainly prevents TV shows from becoming 'high art' the way books or films or paintings do.
That being said, it is obviously possible to compare series to each other (which, I assume, you do) rather than view them in a broader context.
For me this is the reason to consider Sherlock a high-quality production - there are obvious plotline flaws, sometimes outright stupidity, and weird character cliches; in a nutshell, it is genuinely mediocre; but when I take the fact that it is a non-screen version!TV series (non-literal screen version, that is) into account, I acknowledge that there aren't many works of its kind that are better made.

MTE on Cumberbatch, though. He's decent, sure, but I just cannot be bothered to think anything other than "this performance is OK".

Also, the major part of the hype is due to sexy white men, epic friendship, and popular 'socipathy' and other nonconformist trends.

I kind of do not understand how people can think that one or another TV series is amazeballs!!!11 and made by a bunch of geniuses.

Well, there's Breaking Bad.

(no subject)

dreemyweird - 2013-08-31 21:04 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2013-08-31 21:19 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2013-08-31 22:26 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

ariakas - 2013-09-01 02:07 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

agnes_bean - 2013-09-01 04:04 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

ariakas - 2013-09-01 04:09 (UTC) - Expand

I kind of do not understand how people can think that one or another TV series is amazeballs!!!11 and made by a bunch of geniuses. TV things, especially long TV things, are made to be aired. They don't get enough people interested=they are cancelled. This means a lot of cliches, lazy tropes, fanservice, and so on. This is not bad, but it certainly prevents TV shows from becoming 'high art' the way books or films or paintings do.

This is not true.

It's absolutely true that television is a commercial thing, and that television shows are aired (for the most part, although not entirely) for commercial reasons. But being commercial does not mean that something cannot be high art. If it is true that most TV is created to get viewers and make money, it is not significantly different in that respect from most of the most well-known works of art of the last century. What do you think the people who published Hemingway and Fitzgerald, or JD Salinger, or the people who made The Godfather were thinking, except that they wanted to make profit - and all of those things were enormously popular and successful and profitable, in addition to being really good.

The thing is that just because something is intended to find viewers and make a profit does not mean that it must necessarily pander to the lowest common denominator and be full of cliches and lazy etc. It's perfectly possible for the people making the show to have a different intent than the people publishing the show and to want to make art even if at the same time the finance guys want to make gobs of money, and it's completely possible for someone to attempt to go after niche markets who care about quality or to have a business model for TV different from pushing advertisements to the most viewers possible.

And if we look at the last 15, 20, 25 years, we see that this is in fact the case and is becoming more and more the case. It's even true on basic cable, where you can have stuff like David Milch working on NYPD Blue and you can have Hill Street Blues and you can have fucking David Lynch making Twin Peaks and you can have comedy shows like The Simpsons and Seinfeld, but it's especially true outside of broadcast.

Look at HBO if you want an example - they are a subscriber service, rather than advertisement funded free TV. Look at premium cable channels like FX and AMC, who basically make their money from cable providers as much as from ads. These are not business models that necessarily need to focus on the lowest common denominator - and in fact, they don't. These channels have all realized that as long as they can do really well with some people, they don't need everybody, and that has spurred them on to make legitimate, uncompromised quality programming. The Sopranos, Breaking Bad, The Wire, Deadwood - you may not like these shows, but the idea that they are unserious, or that they are fatally compromised by the commercialistic intent behind them, is totally wrong. The people making these shows are people who are interested in making great work and they are being given the freedom to do it. Again, whatever you think of the outcome, but there is absolutely nothing stopping people from attempting to make high art, and even having it run for a long time.

I'm sorry I just wrote like a million words but, I mean, come on. I honestly don't understand how someone can look at the past 20 years and look at the extremely interesting developments in television and still say this kind of thing.

(no subject)

dreemyweird - 2013-08-31 22:02 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2013-08-31 22:13 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

agnes_bean - 2013-08-31 23:12 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2013-09-01 02:22 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

ariakas - 2013-09-01 02:14 (UTC) - Expand

meh, Elementary is way better, imo...

Agree.

Yeah, he is an actor, not bad, but not a walking sex god either, as many seems to believe. But he has one thing really going for him: his voice! Actually, thinking of it, I ship his voice with Tim Curry's. They should act in slash-audio together. Mm-hm... mm-mmmmm... *pants*

Double-teaming the voice of Anthony Head, while the voice of Brian Cox narrates. *listening-gasm!*

Jeremy Brett's voice trumps him.

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2013-08-31 22:23 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2013-08-31 22:25 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2013-09-01 02:36 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2013-09-01 03:20 (UTC) - Expand

As has already been mentioned, people like different things & that's a good thing. Don't worry about it. It's/he's not to your taste, no biggie.

I have a soft spot for the show because it's what finally got me to read the Canon (it was always on my "to read" list, but I finally READ IT). And I do think Benedict is a great actor, but talent is arbitrary. What's AWESOME in one person's eyes may be MEH or EW to another.

[Picture is Sherlock Holmes and John Watson from the TV show "Sherlock" staring at the viewer from in front a door.]

I think Sherlock is okay. Not amazing, not bad, just okay.

Bonus secret: I also think Benedict Cumberbatch is an average actor.

I don't get the hype. Am I missing something? [displeased face emoticon]

Edited 2013-08-31 21:56 (UTC)

No, you aren't missing anything.

It just didn't click with you, and that's ok. Every one has different tastes and sometimes things normally to your taste just...aren't.

/another person who just cannot make herself care or be interested. It's like football, it's such a noninterest for me that it's painful to sit there and try to focus on it.

IA with this secret.

Neither the show nor Benedict's acting really blew me away.

Short answer: No you're not missing anything.

+11101

His Sherlock is a painful study in severe overacting.

These are not rare or unpopular opinions, even among people who call themselves fans of the show.

Anyway, I watch a show called Lestrade, it's only 5 ten to twenty minute episodes and it is awesome.

(no subject)

gamma_orionis - 2013-09-01 01:14 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2013-09-01 01:22 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

gamma_orionis - 2013-09-01 01:25 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2013-09-01 02:31 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

blueonblue - 2013-09-01 02:47 (UTC) - Expand

Tbh what I really like about Benedict is his voice, it's a nice voice.

i really love sherlock but i pretty much love all SH adaptations. i think BC is a good actor but is defo being overhyped and it's just going to get worse what with the wiki-leaks movie coming out soon

I didn't think Benedict Cumberbatch was a particularly good actor when I first watched the show either. I'd read that he was a posh public school boy so I figured Sherlock was fairly close to his personality. Then I discovered that he is nothing like Sherlock at all -- he's actually a naive insecure dork in real life. And suddenly I was like, damn, that's acting, baby.