Patterns throughout BBC Sherlock

[Arcadia]

Yeah, that's why I though I'd float this to the top ... sometimes it's easier to find stuff if it's in its own thread.

[Surelock]

 

This video does a good job of explaining what kind writer Moffat is based off how he writes Sherlock and Doctor Who:

 

 

[Arcadia]

I'd say that's a pretty fair assessment. 

It was always a mystery to me why fans thought there were so many hidden clues in Sherlock. (Look, a statue of a dog ... it must mean something!) I mean, it would have been lovely if it had been true, but where did the idea that it was true come from in the first place? Something about this show got people to thinking it was More Than It Seemed. Curious phenomenon. 

I don't agree there was no character arc for the three main characters of Sherlock ... Sherlock, John, Mycroft. Just that the arcs weren't particularly earth-shattering. Sherlock becomes somewhat less abrasive, John becomes somewhat more so, and Mycroft turns out to be less omniscient than either he or Sherlock believed him to be. Not very dramatic, perhaps, but fairly consistent, yeah?

[Boton]

19 minutes ago, Arcadia said:

 

It was always a mystery to me why fans thought there were so many hidden clues in Sherlock. (Look, a statue of a dog ... it must mean something!) I mean, it would have been lovely if it had been true, but where did the idea that it was true come from in the first place? Something about this show got people to thinking it was More Than It Seemed. Curious phenomenon. 

 

I think maybe because the show is generally so very well written, it makes people think there are layers that may not actually be there. Plus, I think Moftiss did what few Holmes portrayals have done, and that's make Sherlock, John, and Mycroft very relatable, and increasingly so as the show went on. Because it is so easy to relate to the characters, it's very tempting to put our own experiences on them and to seek confirmation that they are just like us.  

[Arcadia]

True ... but I actually give more credit to the actors for the relatable part. BC especially; whether intentionally, or just because he was born with eyebrows that quirk just that certain way --- he invests Sherlock with a huge amount of soulfulness, and I don't think it's there in the scripts. At least, not in the ones I've read so far. In the scripts he comes off as more of an actual dick. But the writers chose the actor, so I assume that's what they were looking for, whether they wrote it in or not. So yeah, they still get some of the credit.

At any rate, I wasn't really wondering why fans became so invested in the show; I was wondering why so many seemed to think the show was strewn with secret messages and hidden clues. Not just the tjlc-ers, but there are (were?) so many theories about why this prop appeared here, and why that color appeared there, etc. Is that usual for a TV show? Maybe it's normal and I've just never been this engaged with a fandom before.

[Boton]

9 minutes ago, Arcadia said:

 

At any rate, I wasn't really wondering why fans became so invested in the show; I was wondering why so many seemed to think the show was strewn with secret messages and hidden clues. Not just the tjlc-ers, but there are (were?) so many theories about why this prop appeared here, and why that color appeared there, etc. Is that usual for a TV show? Maybe it's normal and I've just never been this engaged with a fandom before.

Do you think it has anything to do with a couple of possible factors:

• The show is at least nominally a mystery/detective show, which invites people to pay closer attention to try to solve the mystery first. Except the show is so focused on interpersonal interaction that this attention shifts to how people live, like why the TV is where it is and what John has on his desk and whatnot.
• The internet makes possible a lot of canonical information in the form of blogs or interviews with people involved in props, lighting, costumes, etc. So, you feel like if that much thought went into selecting the wallpaper, then there has to be some meaning behind the salt shaker.

Just a thought.

[Arcadia]

Possibly. But I used to subscribe to sci-fi fan magazines, and to be honest, there was far more behind-the-scenes info in those than I normally find on the internet. 

In fact, that's one big disappointment about the 'net, for me ... it seems like most of the information is whittled down to take up as little room as possible. I would have thought with all that free space, I would have found a lot more in-depth news/discussions/information on the 'net than I ever did in books or magazines. But the reverse has proved to be true. Maybe because the author of a daily blog can't be bothered to do their research, the way the author of a 700-page tome would be expected to do? Dunno. I just know if I really want an in-depth news story, for example, I'm better off reading the paper than anything on the internet. Unless it's a copy of the paper. (And even then, I find it much harder to read on the 'net, what with all the cuts and ads and pop ups and .... really, most of the 'net is a graphic designer's nightmare.............. )

[Boton]

I totally agree about the internet (including the graphic design travesties).  I think part of it, too, is a shift to getting what you reward. Long-form journalism has all but disappeared, replaced by short takes that can be read on a mobile device in less than a couple of minutes. Higher fee print pieces that were expected to take several months of research have been replaced by who can get the hottest, most immediate takes on Twitter. I know several content marketers who are trying to make a living banging out $50-$100 blog pieces designed less to inform and educate than they are to drive traffic; there is no reward for in-depth research. In fact, there is a disincentive; 10,000 words on how to craft a strategic business plan will get largely ignored, while 500 words titled "Ten Things You Can Do TODAY to Grow Your Business" will get enough click through to impress those bosses who will pay that $50 invoice at net 90 and expect another 500 words tomorrow.

[Hikari]

Boton,

I'm not responding to your post above.  I just wanted to tell you that out of curiosity I visited your fan fic page and have just thoroughly enjoyed 'Wanted: Flatmate' and Parts 1 & 2 of 'Guy Talk'.  Bravo, well done!

I think we need to have a fan fic written from Stamford's POV.  I feel like I've come across one in one of my many pastiche anthologies, but I wondered if you knew of one for our BBC Mike.  (That adorable Geordie, David Nellist.  I love Geordie men and he's no exception.)

[Boton]

Thank you, Arcadia!  [blushes]

I'm positive this is not what you are looking for regarding Stamford, but if you were ever curious about whether "Stamlock" could work, this is hysterical (and rated G):

https://archiveofourown.org/works/4890850

[J.P.]

Hihihi… that was me with the dog statue.

The thing is, the show is full of canon Easter eggs. In the writing and also on the set design. So, anything you have seen, might be a clue to something you don't know yet. And yes, the writing is so brilliant, that you just don't accept it has simple plot holes and such.

BTW, yesterday it occurred to me that in TFP, Eurus could have two nice Big Blues brought to Baker Street and strategically placed under the windows by her own "homeless network". Just saying

[Arcadia]

Oh, I read about it before you brought it up, JP. I think. Well, if not that, then something like that. Anyway, I didn't mean to be singling you out.

At any rate, I get your point ... the show's so brilliant in so many ways, that when something seems odd or out of place, it's more fun to believe it's you missing out on the meaning, rather than the show makers simply making a mistake. (Or decorating a set.) Ah, the joys of fandom......

[Carol the Dabbler]

On 3/21/2018 at 9:54 AM, Arcadia said:

It was always a mystery to me why fans thought there were so many hidden clues in Sherlock. (Look, a statue of a dog ... it must mean something!) I mean, it would have been lovely if it had been true, but where did the idea that it was true come from in the first place? Something about this show got people to thinking it was More Than It Seemed. Curious phenomenon.

I think one big reason is that Moftiss encourages that sort of thinking by implying that the show really *is* More Than It Seems.

E.g., from these clues, we are supposed to deduce that Mary is actually a spy or something:

1.  She recognizes a skip code (hey, maybe she reads spy/mystery novels!)

2. She remembers Major Sholto's room number (hey, maybe she booked the rooms with special attention to John's old CO)

3. Was there another one?

Anyhow, you tell the fans that those limp clues were meant to add up to something major, and then you wonder why they think the dog statue is significant?

Oh, and there's always the old "There's a clue that everybody missed" crap.  (I don't recall that they ever got around to telling us what the clue *was* -- so how should we know whether we missed it or not?)  That may well have gotten some people so paranoid about missing clues that they started seeing them under the bed.

[Arcadia]

Oh, right ... THAT clue. Why does no one ever ask Moffat about that clue? (Maybe because they're like me and have forgotten all about it by now.)

Weren't people seeing "clues" well before S3, though? Ah ... all the "IOU"s in TRF. Aha. Okay, I concede there is a reason to be looking for clues.

It's amazing what a good night's sleep can do for my mental faculties......