#st s5

[erikiara80]

I hope they release the VHS edition of S2 in August, S3 in September, S4 in October and S5 in November. Hopefully, Side B this time, and hopefully, there will be changes in other seasons too.

[erikiara80]

[erikiara80]

[erikiara80]

I don't know if it means something, but I noticed this

Edward, like Edward Creel, and Maxwell's disease

Maxwell (coffee), a rocket, like Will's rainbow ship, and the word save

Hm

[erikiara80]

I still wonder if these pics are hints that the guy we see in Nina was actually in the silo (experiments in Nevada, right?). But in the 70s, or the 80s?

Anyway, IF he really was there, and not as a memory, the story would completely change (unless Brenner sees him too in the silo, in a vision or something like that)

But there's one thing that has been bothering me since episode 1. Why was the light already on in the shed? I know we see this in many movies and tv shows, but in this case I can't tell if it's a clue or not.

Like we've been pointing out for years, there's definitely something weird in Will's vanishing, and with all the parallels between this scene and the kids' visions in S4, I just can't trust anything I see lol

We see that his hair keeps changing, and this is intentional. But why? Are all these hints that we've been seeing different timelines? Altered memories? Both?

So many questions.

[erikiara80]

Yep me too those dates are what I’m hoping for if it is truly a time loop it makes so much sense! Also all the release dates were holidays but thanks giving last year was on the 27th but it’s on the 26th this year! So maybe that’s a clue too… in the Emmy’s date release it said thanks giving release for volume 1 but thanks giving was on the 27th in 2025 so it was a day after hope that makes sense!

Sorry anon, I don't know why I didn't see your ask! Yep, Nov 26, Christmas and New Year's Eve make sense. But I'm ok with any date :)

I just hope they at least announce something in July. Anything!

[erikiara80]

After Will vanishes

we see a big key and Sarah's house castle

Cathy's story

Cathy's birthday and Will's funeral

when Will's family is mentioned, blonde Jennifer is in the shot

Castle Byers, and El in Nancy's pink dress

Princess Sarah

Princess Nancy and her castle

The connection between these three families intrigues me so much

[erikiara80]

I get many anons, I'm sure ST fans, asking me why I keep posting about BBC Sherlock, so this is my honest opinion.

I think Sherlock is a brilliant and sophisticated show. There are like 5 references in every scene, references to Oscar Wilde and his arrest (with all its implications re Sherlock), references to lots of movies, Doyle's life, and every Sherlock Holmes adaptation ever made, including the Russian one. So, sometimes, when I read what some Stranger Things fans who haven't watched or analyzed that show say about it, to me they sound like the general audience who doesn't understand Stranger Things and what conformitygate really means.

And just like I find it frustrating when Sherlock fans try to lecture ST fans, when it's clear that they haven't analyze ST ("it's just production errors!" "There's no reason for more content in that show," yeah, sure), I also find it frustratring that ST fans don't see the irony in some of their comments about Sherlock. If you haven't watched Sherlock and only read rants about it online or watched popular videos on Youtube made by people who love to listen to their own voice more than doing actual research (I'm talking about the video of the young woman that everyone always brings up as a must watch to understand Sherlock -spoilers- it's definitely not) you will sound like the people who believe that Stranger Things is "not that deep", just a story about monsters, dnd and a cool girl with psychic powers.

But I also get it. Sherlock ended almost 10 years ago. It's obvious that it's over, right? Well, yes, it very likely is, I've accepted that. But in my opinion, not because S4 was always meant to be the end of the story. If there are no more seasons, I believe it's because the project was maybe too ambitious and risky, and so it failed. It happens. But if it's not over, this is my and other people's theory. If we're right, they would truly make history, like they were saying in the pre-S4 interviews.

In order to really recreate the story of John Watson and Sherlock Holmes in modern times, the showrunners also needed to recreate the death of Sherlock Holmes and what the original fans experienced (they had to wait ten years for him to come back). There's a problem though. We, the modern audience, know that Sherlock came back. In fact, the showrunners didn't even try to make it look like Sherlock dies in The Reichenbach Falls episode. They show Sherlock in the graveyard, looking at John from a distance. So, how could they kill Sherlock again and make people believe that it was really over?

They killed Sherlock, the show. S4 is the modern Reichenbach Falls. In fact, the very last shot of the series is John and Sherlock frozen in time. Sherlock Holmes was brought back in 1927, after ten years. Sherlock ended in 2017 and we're in 2026...

The "secret episode" is ancient news. It's actually season 5, the five pips and the five acts story. It's Checkhov's gun that never shot. It's the showrunners saying even before S3 was out, that they were planning both S4 and S5, and the BTS photos of things that never happened (why is there a "John alibi" post-it? John doesn't need an alibi in S4... unless he does, for Mary's death) It's the Sherlock hints in other shows made by the showrunners (sounds familiar?). it's the sometimes actual elephant in the room, the blue and red as fake and real, and the actress who plays Molly saying that to understand S4 people should learn about Brecht and The Theatre of the Absurd (some posts about the absurdism and "fakeness" of S4 here, here and here).

It's the doctored footage of events we saw in previous seasons, shown at the beginning of the season (S4) that, curiously, looks very different from the rest of the show (ep 4x01: Sherlock: "That's not what happened!" Mycroft - played by one of the showrunners btw: "It is now.") And last but not least, actually this is the most canon thing, it's John Watson being an unrealable narrator. He literally says in the books that he lies, and in S4 they keep bringing that up with his blog. That's why I believe that the content in S4 is his blog, the "doctored footage" of what really happened.

So, in conclusion. I know that at least some of the ST writers are Sherlock fans. It was all the mentions of Sherlock in S4 that made me want to analyze ST! So, in my humble opinion (of course, I could be wrong), if the Duffers are half as talented as I think they are, they watched that show and saw what the showrunners were doing. If you're a good writer, you can't watch Sherlock and think that it's a bad series that was never "that deep".

* (I also want to say that I don't think that they made a lesbian fall in love with Sherlock. Adler is one of the many Sherlock mirror characters. She is Sherlock. Same hair, at some point she even wears his coat. She wants his help, that's why she keeps teasing him. Food=sex in the show, and when she texts him, she always says: "I'm not hungry (not attracted to you) Let's have dinner.") People have the right to dislike that storyline, absolutely valid. Maybe it's too subtle? I don't know. Personally, Irene Adler episode is not one of my favorites. I just wanted to say what I think their intent was)

If you want to read some really good analyses on Sherlock, you can check my sherlock meta tag :)