36% of the people don't like it? WHAT'S THAT? I agree that the episode was unusual but absolutely well-done, emotional and clever. 

Swanpride wrote:

I think it is mostly the haters coming out of the woodwork...most critics I have read are from people who don't like the show (but watch it anyway????)...you know, success breeds contempt. It's no wonder that it happened.

I totally agree with you but we need to make our voice heard anyway.
I'm sure many people is envious of the show's success as well as their actors'.

The only thing that matters is ratings.  I can rail against X-Factor all day, but as long as people watch, it will continue to be renewed and absurd.  I don't really care about arguing with a newspaper critic about a show that I and many others enjoy.  Unless the ratings drop dramatically, their critique won't matter at all.

Mary Me wrote:

Swanpride wrote:

Honestly, after explaining goldfishes on the Telegraph article that their so called plot holes aren't any and that they should better pay attention to what was going on (one seriously argued that killing the guard by going over the shower door would work, another one complained that Sherlock threw up ON John's wedding (I guess the concept of a flashback was too complicated) and another one claimed that Sherlock should have noticed the extra alcohol in his beer...because it is so easy to notice alcohol in alcohol, especially when you are already drunk), I'm tired of this nonsense...I like my little happy squee hole here.

What nonsense people are capable of... I agree with you here. Let's just stay away from that negative energy...
 

*nods* I agree. 
 

Mrs.Wenceslas wrote:

I think it´s completely OK to have different opinion on anything. some people just don´t like Sherlock, which doesn´t make them bad or stupid.

Absolutely. 

(doesn't mean I understand how people can not love it, hehe  )
 

Last edited by SilverMoonDragonB (January 6, 2014 3:35 pm)

To balance this here is a five star review from The Times:

http://cumberbatchweb.tumblr.com/post/72438736663/sherlock-the-sign-of-three-times-review

Swanpride wrote:

Honestly, after explaining goldfishes on the Telegraph article that their so called plot holes aren't any and that they should better pay attention to what was going on (one seriously argued that killing the guard by going over the shower door would work, another one complained that Sherlock threw up ON John's wedding (I guess the concept of a flashback was too complicated) and another one claimed that Sherlock should have noticed the extra alcohol in his beer...because it is so easy to notice alcohol in alcohol, especially when you are already drunk), I'm tired of this nonsense...I like my little happy squee hole here.

Those kinds of opinion remind me of what Orwell said in 'Politics and the English language.'

"People who write in this manner usually have a general emotional meaning -- they dislike one thing and want to express solidarity with another -- but they are not interested in the detail of what they are saying." G.O.

The writers have to match the enormous expectations of the audience, whilst also staying fresh and not repeating oneself. Better them than me. They've taken us to new places and of course they're not gonna make everybody happy, how could that ever be possible? If they stuck to a 'baddie of the week' format there'd also be critisism. I love TGG, but nine episodes just like TGG would be boring. 

Instead they've shown that they are daring and imaginative and think outside the box. I hope they don't listen to the critics. 

SusiGo wrote:

Mary Me wrote:

SusiGo wrote:

To balance this here is a five star review from The Times:

http://cumberbatchweb.tumblr.com/post/72438736663/sherlock-the-sign-of-three-times-review

Lovely review but as the writer of the blog points out, Andrew Billen obviously didn't understand The Bloody Guardsman plot. 
Which bothers me only a little when I think that other people use that sort of misunderstanding to justify their bad reviews.
 

You are right. ​
Although it is quite obvious why he chose the guardsman: He wears a uniform belt. He must stand still during his watch. He must endure people taking photographs. Ideal target, I would say. And no connection to the murderer either. 
 

Yeah. Until now I haven't found any plot holes but then I haven't been actively looking for them either.

What the heck does jump the shark mean anyway? Sorry for my goldfishness.