Whisky wrote:

I wonder, is there an objective way to judge this show?

 

It's art! It is super hard to be objective about art, I think if people were only feeling objectively about an art form, the creators would feel pretty dead inside    I remember once having to completely take apart a certain TV show in the cutting room, because the director themself had become so attached to the material. It was one of the hardest things I ever had to do, and some. I'd like to think in the end it was better, because I was more subjective than the director was, and able to see it from a different place more in line with the audience. Likewise in theatre, the performers themselves are not objective; they look to the audience to amplify or tone down parts of their performance.

I do think as fans and art fanatics, we will intially see something through the lens of our experience, and this will change over time leading to more objectivity. But the beauty of art is that it is that initial, subjective emotionally reaction that stays with you as a viewer. 

diva, right now I feel the same about rewatching. But I will try it, sometime.

I think, if the first sadness and emotional response is over, I might be able to enjoy TFP for what it is. But I cannot enjoy it right now for what I hoped it was. I will have to go back to zero and tell myself: this is what you get, that's all there is, now find the goodies. And I will. I'm sure.

Just right now, I'm suffering from the impact. It's a relationship thing. You will get over it, and some long time after the break-up, you can have a coffee and see it for what it is, and that it had it's good enjoyable moments. But right now, it's like many people are celebrating a wedding while I'm having a broken heart. And it was a long, intense, wonderful relationship. You always want the probably last conversation you have with each other to be a good, conclusive one. You don't want to feel like hanging in the air, stuttering "but why?".

I will probably be nicer to the episode in a few weeks. Maybe even days. But not right now

I'm trying to rewatch, because some people mentioned scenes I apparently missed. Some scenes where nicer than expected the second time. But overall... still not really fond.
 

Sorry guys, I just thought it was amazing.
They went out with a bang.

Meggie K wrote:

ginger, I admit I tended to agree with you, especially  when the episode ended on a sugary 2 men and a baby theme. I wondered if I would ever want to watch it again. When our local PBS channel reran it at midnight, I thought I'd see if it held my attention. It did. My interest and, yes, a genuine appreciation for, the episode increased  and I watched it all, catching more details than the first time through. Has hindsight altered or softened your opinion? I appreciate your honesty!

It still feels like a let down but I now like Mycroft more then I ever did. I felt this ep was like seeing the Matrix for the first time and thinking you knew where they were going to go and then you see the next two movies. I generally go back and watch the ep again right after I watch it a first time but this time I didn't. I did re watch the first 12 minutes up until the bomb went off in baker st. One thing I really liked about this show was how it used logic to solve its mysteries. It was why I could never get into Supernatural even though it has a huge following. I can turn off my brain and believe some things there is a point I just notice the errors. Sherlocks sister seems to have almost super powered level mind abilities which don't exist in the Sherlock universe. At least with Moriarty we know he didn't have a key to the whole city, he was blackmailing people. She was said to have the intelligence of newton but I don't see how that translates as evil. Maybe it was like in the play Wicked, 'Was she truly wicked or did she have wickedness thrust upon her' 

diva wrote:

Didn't they say when they pull the rug we would say "I should have seen it coming" and that the culmination of this series was about the story they have been telling us from the beginning. Well sorry then I must be dumb but I didn't feel like I should have seen this coming, the mad sibling story doesn't make groundbreaking television for me and I can't see how it is a part of the story they have been telling from the beginning.

I'm just picking this quote, because well: Didn't they say so many things in the past years? Didn't they say that in TRF there was a clue that everyone missed - and did they ever tell us what that clue was supposed to be? And didn't they tell us that in S4 they would be writing tv history? Where did they do that, exactly?

Today I read a post on another forum (which has nothing to do with BBC Sherlock, it's a forum for all sorts of topics, but there is a Benedict-thread) which basically said that the success of the show has made Mofftiss kind of high and that the most important thing for them seems to be to throw all sorts of clever stuff at us - and most of the stuff doesn't really add up. And I agree. Everything has to be so clever - which is totally fine, but instead of just showing it to us they are making a huge fuss about it in advance, telling us how clever and crazy it's going to be. I've stopped watching or reading interviews with Mofftiss quite some time ago, but when you're on tumblr you come across a lot of this stuff anyway. And everytime I do I know exactly why I'm not actively seeking out those interviews anymore. Because they're making promises, they're announcing all sorts of stuff and yes, they are raising expectations. And afterwards they go "There is a clue everyone missed, I can't believe nobody saw that, hahaha!!". Thanks, but no thanks.

Apart from that: I really liked TLD. They promised us darkness and with TLD they delivered convincingly. TFP however felt so self-indulgent and totally over the top to me. There were some great moments, but in the context of the whole show it felt so constructed and artificial. To me this is a clue that they did not plan this from the very beginning. I know they keep talking about the story they have been telling from the start - but I don't buy it, sorry.
 

I am still quite ambivalent, I guess I will give it chance and rewatch. I liked the beginning and end but the middle? 
We have already expected some tragedy in Sherlock's childhood and third sibling somehow guitly for some time, even that Readbeard probably is not just a dog,  but I am a bit  disappointed with this solution. It is like they would  prefer action and horror to clever things unlike previous episodes. They had to justify  whole life inprisonment, to show that it was necessary, no other possibility so showed totally mad person but it did not work for me. After TLD  I expected something more, the false Faith was promising but the person in Sherrinford? And the game?  I must admit that the part was for me partly unrealistic partly boring.
I felt big relief when the Moriarty scene appeared to be 5 years ago, OK as explanation, . But why the Moriarty's videos, they were just annoying. And the rest in the fort was absurd.  Surprisingly, at Musgrave,  the same game but I liked it much better. I might have some problem with closed room.

And one more thing I am still not able to process - the girl had 6 years, did something horrible but  still isolate such a child totally from society is just the oposite what should be done to try to cure at least something. I cannot believe that loving parent would agree and do not want to be intensivelly included in what happens with their daughter. Mycroft had nothing to do with it, she had to be alive for them still for years.  Or did I miss some important information? 

Liberty wrote:

Preceja, it was Uncle Rudy who dealt with Eurus when she was a little girl (Mycroft was too young).

I know but cannot imagine Uncle Rudi to take the child and exclude parents who should be the most important people included into the rehabilitation of the child except for the specialists.

I'm with you Whisky and others.. I will "always"
love Sherlock.  Can't help myself.

But is sad, and the end of an era..  I will forever
consider seasons 1 and 2 some of the best
television ever made, and am grateful for that.

It 's tough to point to an example of a series
finale that really touches on all the right points
and hits it out of the park anyway  (Breaking Bad,
maybe?), so I can forgive a bit.   I probably
just won't re-watch the comparative plot
sloppiness of this ending anytime soon.

Overall, though, (applause), still in love.

Off to my bee cottage in Sussex Downs now...
Anyone?

besleybean wrote:

I think with it being the last episode, they threw the kitchen sink at it.
But I still think it's basically the story they wanted to tell...I loved it.

They always wanted to tell the story that Sherlock had a secret sister with mental superpowers? That's the one thing that they wanted to correct because every previous Holmes adaptation got it wrong?