"Show don't Tell" isn't a universal rule

There are times when many people seem to think it is, or at least in a visual medium like film and animation it is.  I see it in Fanboy-Perspective's defense of Batman V Superman and Clark's lack of dialogue in it.

But there are times when I do feel telling is better then showing. Especially if you're someone who wants less Origin Stories in Superhero movies, what you basically want is to be told not shown.  Likewise if you don't like overuse of Flashbacks, you want to be told not shown.  I'm annoyed how many fans feel that dead Robin easter egg means some DCEU film HAS to flashback to when that happened, how about we just leave that to the imagination for a change?

If you are the opposite of me on the issue of if movies should be longer or shorter, or if you feel the same.  Sometimes telling is shorter and sometimes showing is shorter, it depends on what you're trying to communicate.

And this also ties into how I'm a big supporter of, especially for horror, the idea that what you don't see is more disturbing then what you do.

But the thing about any medium that has acting as one of it's story telling tools.  Is what you can do by showing how a character tells something, and how others react while listening.  When trying to understand Shakespeare, it's import to know that Elizabethian audiences would have cared more about what they heard then what they saw.

In the 70s TV Miniseries Jesus of Nazareth, there are many things I don't like about it (mainly the White Washing) but also things I think it did well.  One of it's highlights was showing Jesus tell the parable of the Prodigal Son to a room full of people, it was a far better choice then cutting to a dramatization of it.

I enjoyed Suicide Squad, but yes it is a flawed movie.  One of it's highlights is El Diablo telling his backstory in the bar scene.  I feel that could have maybe been improved by not having any flashbacks, but just having him tell the story.

If a movie is ever made of Paul Feval's John Devil.  I do not want any "Flashbacks" or whatever you might call a Dramatization of the stories Henri Belcamp tells about his adventures in Australia and on St Helena.  One reason is because none of those stories are entirely true, and the audience of a movie tends to assume anything we see play out must have happened.

But also because I want to see Henri Belcamp be an Orator.  I want to show how he plays his audience and how they are suckered in by it.  Same thing if a movie was made out of The Vampire Countess, another Paul Feval novel translated into English by Brian Stableford.

So no, what I'm saying is we don't need to see everything, it sometimes works to just tell us.

I have seen all 9 episodes of Sherlock

I enjoyed it, my favorite episode was probably a Scandal in Belgravia.  All the actors do a very good job.

I really like Molly, who I don't think is based on anyone from the original books.

It's interesting how Artistic inspiration goes in circles, House M.D. was clearly based on Holmes a great deal, and it's also clearly influenced the Holmes Adaptations that have been made since.

On the question of how Sherlock survived the fall.  We're kind of supposed to see the third answer shown at the real one, but it's still a little ambiguous.  I found the the 3rd scene shown the most absurd frankly, there is no way that couldn't have had witnesses who weren't in on it.

All 3 theories start with the same wrong assumption I think, that Sherlock surviving means he didn't hit the pavement.  It could be a simply matter of him doing something when he landed to minimize the damage.

Now the big mystery is If and and if so How did Moriarty survived.  Which I find interesting because he killed himself the same way Henri Belcamp did in John Devil.  And while Feval never made a sequel to that I think he was going to if the novel had been more successful at the time.

People accidentally survive shooting themselves through the Mouth like that quite often.  Anything you can do by accident someone as smart as Moriarty could probably do on purpose.

I found the show's take on Charles Augustus Miverlton (Magnussen) interesting.  He's a total control freak and literally marks his territory.

The reveal of how his "Files" actually work reminded my of The Colonel's Treasure a little bit.  It's Psychological rather then Supernatural, but the premise is the same, it kind of doesn't actually exist.  He is the Treasure.