wssh-watson:

monikakrasnorada:

victorian-sexstache:

sherlock-william-sharps-ferrets:

snakeassassins:

I think I may have found the only other person on the planet who hates sherlock as much as I do

bless this

I’m only 5 minutes in and I’m CRYING

There’s a lot to unpack here, but I just have one thing to say regarding the ‘complaint’ that Moffat made the show too much about Sherlock. I think that was the point? It is titled Sherlock. I really don’t think they set out to film / retell the Casebook or the Adventures of. I really think their objective was to tell us about Sherlock.

Yes, this. It was their intention: Moffat wanted to shift the focus from the cases to the person itself, which is… an okay thing to do? I mean, not every Sherlock Holmes adaptation must follow the episodic format. I think it’s fine if you want to tell a story about the character(s) instead of the cases, if that’s where your fascination lies! And he was upfront about doing that. So complaining as first point about changing the original episodic format into an overarching plot line–where you see the character development because you story focuses on character, not plot–isn’t really a… too significant and valid criticism for me. Modernisation may not just mean using smartphones and the internet, it can also affect the storytelling. It did.

I think the problem therein, however, is located more in the failure of this character arc and Moffat’s tendency to–as the reviewer criticises he’s done in Jekyll and on Dr Who, when he wrote a full season–his tendency to hint at but never resolve a story. “Keep watching and you’ll find out about mystery a….. next episode: what mystery a? Here’s mystery b! Keep watching and maybe find out about mystery b….” etc etc ad nauseam

That they did this in Sherlock with the queer content is quite obvious.

The reviewer is funny though. “You’re watching a full minute of Sherlock being shitty on a case. Then you’re watching three minutes of sherlock being shitty at home!” Ajdkgk;;djgk 😂😂😂😂