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 peeps 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 :)
