[ SECRET POST #2547 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2547 ⌋

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

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.



__________________________________________________


11.














Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 043 secrets from Secret Submission Post #363.
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

[intrigueing]

I totally agree with all of this, especially the "watching the same play over and over again" part, but it's not the fact that it deviates that ticks people off, it's the fact that fans keep saying "THIS IS SO TRUE TO CANON" when it's not, and that Moffat & Co. claimed it would be true to canon, then changed their mind after one episode.

See, I personally greatly prefer adaptations that take creative license over ones who try to be totally faithful to canon. I mean, if I want canon, I'll read canon. And I don't need any convincing to read canon, because I really, really adore canon and it will always trump all adaptations to me, so why should I try to make adaptations live up to an impossible standard? I want to see adaptations playing around and trying different things. But not everyone is like me, so claiming something is just like canon when it isn't is false advertising for those who do want a faithful adaptation.

So, basically, if you do take creative license with canon, just admit it. It's really annoying when people claim an adaptation is canon, especially when there is really no harm in saying "no, it's not just like canon, but it's still good." Canonicity is not synonymous with superiority, especially with a canon that's painted in as broad strokes with as many possibilities for interpretation as Sherlock Holmes, so I don't get why people have to falsely claim their version is the canon-est version and therefore the best version, QED.

[(Anonymous)]

I didn't know Moffat, et al. had said that and if that's the case, I can see your point. It sucks going into a show expecting one thing and getting another. It was rec'd to me by a friend who said it was set in modern times and it was by the guys who do Dr. Who, so that's all I knew going in. I figured being modern would make it different enough that I wouldn't be bored and so it worked out for me.

You're right, though, that if it's not canon then it shouldn't be sold as such.

[(Anonymous)]

But I think whether one thinks it is true to canon is entirely subjective. Personally I felt it is quite close to canon (as close as a modern day adaption can be), yet I've seen others say its nothing like *shrug*