Couldn't agree more, Schmiezi.
Being a Trekkie, I always loved the "Nitpicker's Guide" and the fact that some people really look out for errors in an almost religious way. I'm not interested in doing so myself, but I enjoy reading about other people's findings. For the fun of it.

Yes, I agree. This is not a crime documentary but, as the creators have stated themselves, a "romance". And suspension of disbelief is quite an essential part of (romantic) fiction. 

I think there's a general sort of unbelievablity in (most) crime fiction too, including ACD.  I believe that in most murder cases it's pretty obvious who done it - there's no mystery.  Serial killers who target strangers are unusual. 

My biggest issue with plot believability in Sherlock is the few times when I feel the plot is driven forward by too much coincidence. 

- Why would Sherlock care about mail not being picked up from a flat in Chinatown?
- Why would he care, or even spot, a library book and then just happen to find the code in the right isle? (And how did the guy who got killed happen to find it there in the first place)
- The note written on the museum envelope is also a bit of a stretch for me
- How can John accept "Not a good time for a reunion" when he proposes they speak with Mycroft when they're on the run? It's the most non-sensical, vague and lazy excuse I've ever heard in Sherlock.
- Same scene, they just happen to run across a stack of fresh newspapers while on the run.

Using that amount of coincidences to drive the plot forward is what I consider weak writing. And interestingly enough, all the examples above are from the same writer (and not Moftiss).

I find Sherlock to be leaps and bounds better, quality-wise, than any superhero movie I've ever seen when it comes to plots and characterizations.

Davina wrote:

Do you not find Hannibal at all challenging? It is different. It does have aspects that require suspension of disbelief but that does not necessarily mean it is in the league of little more than a 'super-hero' type show. I also include Dexter in this: yes, it does at time have plot holes and requires the audience to 'play the game' but essentially it is a 'show' that is able to touch one at a very deep level. Not all shows or films that require suspension of disbelief are unworthy or inferior.

This is actually what I mean by "Superhero" sorts of stories-- Hannibal is really a supervillian, his power is his ability to manipulate, to get into people's heads, to kill--imaginatively---

Dexter: Super-Anti-Hero; always gets his killer, super power: well, he's sort of like Batman in a way. 

These aren't literary characters-- they're comic book characters-- and I think that Sherlock has been given the same treatment. They're about creating a Myth-- the Hero's Journey. That's every comic book character ever written.

Last edited by RavenMorganLeigh (May 28, 2015 8:23 pm)

RavenMorganLeigh wrote:

Davina wrote:

Do you not find Hannibal at all challenging? It is different. It does have aspects that require suspension of disbelief but that does not necessarily mean it is in the league of little more than a 'super-hero' type show. I also include Dexter in this: yes, it does at time have plot holes and requires the audience to 'play the game' but essentially it is a 'show' that is able to touch one at a very deep level. Not all shows or films that require suspension of disbelief are unworthy or inferior.

This is actually what I mean by "Superhero" sorts of stories-- Hannibal is really a supervillian, his power is his ability to manipulate, to get into people's heads, to kill--imaginatively---

Dexter: Super-Anti-Hero; always gets his killer, super power: well, he's sort of like Batman in a way. 

These aren't literary characters-- they're comic book characters-- and I think that Sherlock has been given the same treatment. They're about creating a Myth-- the Hero's Journey. That's every comic book character ever written.

Yeah, I get what you mean by the analogy. And Sherlock is basically a superhero anyway. He's a super detective