I loved all the speculation and setlock prior to s4, however, I realized too late that I had certain expectations based on... whatever my idea of the show was. For instance, I really didn't want them to kill off Mary. So yes, I was pretty unhappy and disappointed about TST and I think it was chiefly due to my own unfulfilled expectations.

I learned my lesson now, I think.

Still, plot holes bother me. It's hard to tell whether plot holes in other seasons would have bothered me if I had to wait so long for those eps (gobbled seasons 1-3 down in a fortnight - and I'd been pacing myself!).

So all in all I think that feverish anticipation spoiled my enjoyment a bit. However, I'd hold Sherlock to higher standards again in a heartbeat

Liberty wrote:

I think we'd been prepared for it being really dark and distressing, which it kind of was ... but I also think that they moved more to an unreal, fantasy-type style which made it not so distressing, and the ending was very warm and satisfying.   So I suppose I was less upset by the series as a whole than I expected to be. 

It's exactly those unreal, fantasy-type elements that I didn't like in series 4.
TST was ok although it felt somewhat disconnected to the previous storyline (Mary shooting Sherlock in HLV was glossed over too quickly for my liking). TLD was one of the most brilliant episodes of the entire show, whereas the entire Eurus storyline in TFP didn't convince me at all because the show went into the realm of the unrealistic, fantasy-type supernatural. I'm still trying to accept this complete turn of style and will rewatch it at least a couple of times but might very well end up deleting most of TFP from my memory.

BrettHolmes wrote:

The best since Season One or Two (I wasn’t a huge fan of Three at the time). To me, every episode was gripping and finale put me nail-biting suspense. I just watched it awhile ago on DVD.
 
However, prior to watching it, I read negative headlines (with ever reading the articles) indicating that it was “Sherlock Bond” or that it is becoming a “self parody.”
 
https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2017/jan/03/sherlock-slowly-perversely-morphing-into-james-bond-benedict-cumberbatch
 
https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2017/jan/16/sherlock-how-the-tv-phenomenon-became-an-annoying-parody-of-itself
 
Going into it I decided to keep my expectations low, which might have helped in me being able to enjoy it (in fact, that Sherlock had sister had been spoiled for me, although everything else surrounding it wasn’t).
 
So the point I’m trying make, does having low (or modest) expectations when seeing a new movie or season of TV show help or should you always hold something you love to high expectation possible? Your thoughts?
 

I watched Setlock photos and read some early reviews for the show, which although not very spoilery, prepared me for the main themes that later appeared in the actual episodes, so thankfully, I was mostly pleasantly surprised with the episodes. Also, I was trying to hold my expectations low, which very much helped as a result - once again, it pleasantly surprised me that none of my dark expectations ever materialised.

I am not too happy with some plot-holes either, but I don´t consider them to be so tragic as to ruin the show for me. The negative reviews exaggerate this side of the show a bit, IMHO.

With the only exception - the Bond influence. I too feel that TST was influenced by James Bond and the spy genre. Mark Gatiss already used a bit of Skyfall imagery in TEH during S3 + he is a big fan of Bond, so I don´t think this is just a conjuration on the part of critics.

Also, there was an interview, where Mark Gatiss confesses:

“I’m deadly serious,” he says. “I would love to do something with Bond. I once went to the pub with Steven Moffat on the condition that we didn’t speak about Doctor Who or Sherlock. So we ended up talking about James Bond all night. We actually came up with a really good story.”

This is the link to the interview:

http://lapoubellewatson.tumblr.com/post/155035009308/sherlocks-mark-gatiss-i-didnt-relish-smashing

I confess I was vastly disappointed with the whole of S3. I found Sherlock's approach to John in the restaurant in TEH highly unbelievable and OOC, I was irritated by Mrs Hudson of all people still promoting Johnlock and I missed the clever puzzles. Throughout TSoT I grew more and more irritated with Mary and when she shot Sherlock in HLV I was totally done with her. And I hated that they made Sherlock fall for such a stupid trap and made him shoot Magnussen. I mean, the point of the series is that he's the cleverest man in the room, except when Mycroft is also in the room. Stupid people believe shooting others is a way to deal with a problem, not people that are actually clever.

Somewhat to my surprise I quite enjoyed TAB. Thankfully Mary didn't feature too heavy in it even though she managed to vex me every time she was on screen.

So I was actually excited for S4 and seriously hoping it would be a return to the miracle that was S1 and S2 which I still consider to be the best TV that was ever made. T6T was mainly disappointing though thankfully Mary died at the end. I heartily thanked Vivian Norbury and hoped with this major obstacle out of the way the writers would return to doing what they once did so well. Oh dear, sadly it just went from bad to worse.

What a gigantic waste of so much obvious talent, of so much love and dedication to a series. The set desginers have obviously done a wonderful job, BC and MF and AS did a wonderful job. But why the hell if you've got people like RG and LB dedicated to making this series didn't they make more and better us of them? Why turn what once was the cleverest drama on television into a third rate action film that was nothing but a sadistic universe, the kind of film I tend to avoid if at all possible? The plot holes were so wide they would let a hurricane pass through and nothing would be disturbed. What did they want to prove? That Sherlock is a human being and a good man? He already showed us he was a human being in TBB, in that scene in the posh restaurant loo. BC's wonderful acting sketched a whole history there, and it was all in a look and a twitch of his eyebrow.

That's what this series once was. I can only cry for a thing of beauty has been destroyed by its creators.

Last edited by dioscureantwins (January 31, 2017 9:24 pm)

I suspect that if they had stayed the same as S1 and S2 - more or less just "case of the day" and some Moriarty thrown into it here and there - both Ben and Martin would have bowed out of the project by now. They both say that the reason they continue to come back is because it's not the same, there is always something new and always development - which keeps it fun and interesting for them.

I think we all agree that things can't stay exactly the same as in S1 and S2 forever and that character and plot development is vital for a show to stay interesting. But there are dozens of possibilities for such a development. And if people don't like the particular development we have seen since S3 then that's only fair and doesn't automatically mean that they expected too much or expected something in particular that the writers didn't deliver. And it doesn't make them bad fans. Sometimes I get the feeling that you should be ashamed of yourself for daring to have any expectations at all.
 

Last edited by SolarSystem (February 1, 2017 8:40 am)

I don´t think that if the same authors delivered some quality detective stories to the actors, that they would refuse to act in them just because of that reason.
I agree with SolarSystem that there are numerous ways how to develop the story so that´s it´s exciting for the fans and doesn´t get stale.

Vhanja wrote:

I don't think people should be ashamed of having expecations, though.Nor should they be ashamed of having a different taste than other fans or the writers. The only thing I think people should be ashamed of if they turn the table and blame the writers for not living up to their expectations - and in particular if they tell the writers that.

People should never send hate or vitriolic rants to the writers, but on the other hand, normal feedback should be okay, even if it´s criticism. If you write it´s good to know if you captured the audience with your vision or if you for some reason didn´t manage to do that. How could you evolve as a writer otherwise?
 

Vhanja wrote:

In normal cicrumcstances, I agree. But in situations like these, when the writers unfortunately have already received their (un) fair load of negativity, I think that even nicely-worded criticism would just serve the role of being part of the harassment. 

Timing, as John would say.

Criticisms and opinions about any particular TV series usually appear right after it is broadcasted, not months later, so in this case I can´t see how it could be helped. Self-censorship of the entire media critics industry and the audience?
 

I'm sure that Mofftiss are professionals enough to be able to take carefully and respectfully articulated criticism for what it is: criticism, not bashing.