Mod note: I think criticisms of the writing and opinions of the team are fine.  It's difficult to have meaningful discussion if we're not allowed to say we didn't like something or why!  However, I think it's worth bearing in mind that it's a fan forum, and I think we can be sensitive to criticism of our favourite TV series.    And there's no need for the criticism to get personal or insulting. 
 

I am not sure how it's possible to read my posts as not wanting criticism of Steven Moffat's writing. As I've said - I like when it's grey and nuanced, I just can't stand when it becomes black and white.

And just as it should be ok to criticise his writing, it should also be ok to criticise the criticism. You should be able to handle what you dish out.

I agree, Liberty. There is a difference between being critical, and not being particular fond, of some scenes or aspects of the show, and to go out and say that his writing and opinions are deranged, demented etc. That, to me, has nothing whatsoever to do with constructive criticism.

But, yeah, that kind of determination to misinterpret that you talk about, Liberty, I think comes from having already set your mind to something, and then you need to make everything fit into your already set opinions. Changing the terrain to fit the map instead of changing the map to fit the terrain. (Filters and all that).

This Is The Phantom Lady wrote:

I think criticism is all fine, but there'sa line that is crossed sometimes that turns nasty. But I haven't seen that happen on here... Tumblr is full of people competing to be nasty for nasty's sake... but I think the debate here is quite nuanced. 

I fully agree with you, Phantom. For me, the nasty-free forum is very important. At the moment, it is the only place on the Internet where I discuss Sherlock. I get angry when forum members are attacked because people outside the forum are behaving nasty but I usually mention it right away so things can get cleared up.

OK, I admit to wading through the stuff, because I've been desperate for some convention news!  I did find this rather lovely picture at https://sherloch.tumblr.com/post/161231867727/andrew-scott-during-the-qa-portion-of-his-live .  Sorry, not sorry, that it's so big!  (I don't know how to shrink it). I have found some more tidbits too, if I can work out how to post them.

I agree, BB!  Now my attempt to post some news ... lets see if I can handle it!

Some thoughts on the meaning (or not!) of the set differences from Mark and Arwel:
http://friskykatt.tumblr.com/post/161117906937/sherlocked-secrets-ssshhhhh
He said any differences were just mistakes. Someone asked him about the lighting if the skull picture, and he said it was a lightbox behind the pic, and that in some scenes it was just too bright so they dimmed it in post. So absolutely no meaning behind it, and he seemed quite sincere about that and even commented that people read too much into things like that, and that they don’t aim for that (meaning subtle meta meanings). Later I brought the same thing up to Arwen, and he said one of the lights had gotten broken and they couldn’t find an identical one, so they just threw a similar one up. Then he explained that there were 2 sets for the stairs, split by the landing, so that’s why you see both different lights in the same scene. Really kind of sad about all the meta we make up that is absolutely not there at all.

In contrast, some information on deliberate set design in relation to "information is power":
https://the-7-percent-solution.tumblr.com/post/161169276353/the-most-interesting-tidbit-from-arwel-at

A thoughtful post about the fandom and the reactions towards Moftiss, from a Johnlock perspective:
http://kimbiablue.tumblr.com/post/161240725633/sherlocked-usa-write-up-and-a-discussion-on-my

Some thoughts about S4 from Mark (presumably about Mary's death):
http://theleftpill.tumblr.com/post/161229696717/the-prospect-of-a-new-series-is-looking-at-what

From the same tumblr account (can't seem to link it):“I think you have to push it all the time.  We have wild ideas - and we do them.  Obviously some of them get grumpy and say “This isn’t the realistic detective show it used to be!"  Heaven knows what they were watching.”— Steven Moffat, Sherlocked USA

The great thing about The Three Gariddebs is the scene where Watson gets shot and The Three Gariddebs itself is just The Red-Headed League again, and I don’t think it’s one of the best ones.  I think John knew perfectly well he was repeating himself, and threw in a good scene to cover it up.  But the scene itself… wouldn’t be the revelation in our version of the show that it was in the Victorian stories.  We already know all that.  We know how Sherlock would have reacted… but in terms of the way we use The Three Gariddebs in The Final Problem, it was just that we had three people to kill and we thought, “oh, you know what would be funny?“.
If you are going to drop people into the sea, give them funny names, it’s that old adage.  Takes the sting out of drowning.— Steven Moffat, on what inspired the inclusion of The Three Gariddebs in The Final Problem



 

Last edited by Liberty (May 30, 2017 8:26 pm)

Vhanja wrote:

Actually, you can. I haven't heard the way he said it, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was said quite humorously (is that correctly spelled?). Even so, I do understand what he means. She shot him the best way she could between her selfish needs (scaring him and incapacitating him) and her wanting him to live (shooting him the best place for his surrvival).

I politely disagree and will stand by my opinion that maiming and killing other people for your own purposes is never "nice", even if people in question have such a low esteem that they agree with the shitty treatment given to them.
And I still think such apology of murder is disgusting, so shoot me.

Vhanja wrote:

But I can't stand black-and-white attitudes, especially towards those who are the creators of - supposedly - the show you are a fan of. Why else would you be here?
(No, that doesn't mean that the only choices you have are full adoration or full hate - there is something called "grey" and "nuanced". And I would love if we could have more of that on this forum).

But there is no room for "grayness" if you have a firm belief of something - for example, that you can´t shoot people nicely. If you absolutely don´t believe that it´s a bit pointless to pretend otherwise, isn´t it?

And I don´t think you absolutely have to be Moftiss admirer to watch Sherlock. You can equally watch the show because you love the actors involved or because you are a lifelong SH fan and watch everything involving the character.... regadless of Moftiss.

A little bit about Mycroft and Sherlock's relationship and TPLOSH:
https://chasingtoby.tumblr.com/post/161233917033/i-think-the-influence-of-tplosh-has-more-to-do

Mycroft is Antartica:
https://chasingtoby.tumblr.com/post/161180348953/mycroft-is-antarctica-confirmed

Again with the black and white thinking - of course you don't have to be a Moftiss admirer to watch the show. Why is it always either/or?

Wow, a lot of great updates, Liberty. Unfortunately I won't have time to catch up on it all tonight. Great Andrew pic!