and also the john is smart in a different way than sherlock scenes

Got Her (Sherlock x Reader)

Title: Got Her

Pairing: Sherlock x reader
Author: @whatthehellisacastiel (Kat)
Words: 1,843
Warnings: Not much. Some cussing and kidnapping.

Author’s note: I had a lot to think about for this one. I made a plan and this story is going to be in 2 parts, maybe three.

Request: Could i get a request for sherlock x reader, where she is kidnapped by Moriarty and Sherlock and her brother (john) have to solve clues to find her? Thank you x
- anonymous

Summary: You were John’s little sister and managed to find yourself into his and Sherlock Holmes’ mess of a life. What happens when a criminal mastermind kidnaps you? Will the detective you’ve fallen for and your brother save you in time?

————————————–

Truth be told that Sherlock never expected to have a single friend, nevertheless two. Two Watsons, both equally insufferable but both his best friends. He’s met John in a lab after an acquaintance of his mentioned to John that Sherlock was looking for a flatmate. Fast forward a few months later you arrived at Baker Street after settling in London yourself to see your older brother. You met Sherlock first and much to everyone’s surprise, the two of you got along nicely. Somehow, you had become a daily part of their daily lives. When you weren’t working, you were either at Baker Street or out helping your brother and Sherlock with a case. Sherlock refrained from thinking back to a time when he didn’t have either you or John by his side, for once in his life he was content with everything going on around him.

Keep reading

He’s… Mercurial. Shear talent. A genius. One of the leading actors in the world. An incredibly formidable presence. A Porsche 911.

Great people about Cumberbatch.

“Hands down, I believe that he’s the most versatile, surprising and charismatic actors of our time.” Christina Bianco, actress


“Benedict transforms, he doesn’t act. He becomes Turing.”, Morten Tyldum, director


"Even as a 13-year old, he was obviously an outstanding actor - a combination of intuition and intellect. It’s probably once in a lifetime that you find a boy actor as magnificent as this. I don’t think I had to speak or work with him in any way when I was directing him. I felt like I was working with a fellow professional rather than a schoolboy.” Mr. Tyrell, Cumberbatch’s acting teacher in Harrow


“Benedict is witty, mercurial… thoughtful and expert. He’s very intelligent but he doesn’t let it show by commenting on the character he is playing.” Richard Eyre, theater director


"He has a sensibility and an oddness to him… and a directness and a fantastic sense of humor (…) So I respect him on a pretty fundamental level (…) He’s an actor who has the ability to play in the outer field of basic acting work (…) He is a very generous, very sensitive, very thoughtful, focused, disciplined actor and, you know, when you work with somebody like that it’s just like playing… like Ronnie Scotts with B.B. King… it’s just a question of when or if… you know when someone’s got it and he’s got it.” Tom Hardy, actor


“He’s a fabulous actor and happens to have the zeitgeist. Sherlock has lifted him into a global star but he manages to combine stardom with utter brilliance which is really rare.” Hay Festival director Peter Florence


“Cumberbatch is a remarkable actor. He can quietly project the inner turmoil that more animated actors can only mimic.” Matthew Gilbert, TV critic


“Benedict Cumberbatch is shear talent. I mean he’s such a fantastically talented actor. He has a marvelous look of course, he has cheekbones you could shave Parmesan of and he’s just a magnificently talented actor. I’ve seen him do so many different things, with such style and he’s also an incredibly nice man and he deserves the enormous acclaim he receives around the world.” Stephen Fry, actor


“He is phenomenal. The amount of work that goes into his roles, he has a great work ethic and a genius mind, he is so inspiring. He really raised the bar for me and he had this integrity and genuineness. I feel really blessed to have worked with him. Plus he is so much fun, he’s become a good friend.” Adelaide Clemens, actress


“Everytime Benedict Cumberbatch opens his mouth it is positively electric… At the time I was getting really into Sherlock series one and I was just totally hypnotized by Benedict and I said to JJ ‘You gotta watch this guy, and one thing let to another and… Thank God! …. All credit goes to Benedict but I was smart enough to realize he is a genius.” Damon Lindelof, screenwriter


"I didn’t really know him as a stage actor. I knew what a fine screen actor he is. But there’s a physicality involved in the theatre. It’s not just about mannerisms or impersonation, which screen often is: it’s about sustaining a narrative with mind and body. When I saw him for Frankenstein, that was the only thing I wanted to know. Did he have that physical capacity? And of course he does. We met and I asked him to do a few things and he was extraordinary in the room. He’s as fit as a boxer, which you have to be for the stage. You have to have an internal fitness that allows you to carry the story so it never sags. He had this combination of the cerebral and the physical which you can see when you look back at his screen work – in Hawking, it’s there. Frankenstein was a great one for using it. That’s why he’s now what he is: one of the leading actors in the world.” Danny Boyle, director


“He’s a genius. There are certain actors who have the ability to take a line of dialogue and add a ring to it that you didn’t even know you put into the dialogue, into the line. And he’s one of those really brilliant actors. Just listening to him talk…you could enjoy him reading the phone book.(…) And he’s an incredibly formidable presence. He’s amazing.” Alex Kurtzman, screenwriter


“We found Benedict Cumberbatch fairly early. We needed a very good actor, someone young enough to be believable as an aristocratic, an almost slightly dislikeable character who is an adolescent in terms of his views of the world, his upbringing. But we also needed someone who could hold the screen for four and half hours, in every scene. We needed someone with experience who was not only a very good actor, but also with terrific comic timing. Benedict was the ideal answer to that.” David Attwood, director (To the ends of the earth)


“Everyone just looked at it and went “Oh. All right.” Meryl looked at me and gave me a big smile, which is Meryl’s way of saying “Well done”. It was not the best quality you’ve ever seen. And his face was very close. But he was wonderful. At first I didn’t realize that he was British because his southern Oklahoma accent was very good. There’s nothing guarded about him. It can be a little daunting because you have the clear impression at all times that he might be more intelligent than you are.” John Wells, director, about Cumberbatch’s iPhone auditioning for August: Osage County


“The difference between stars and just great actors is that stars can make parts into them, rather than themselves into parts; they make those people them. They never quite play it like you expect them to, so it becomes very much Benedict’s Sherlock. Look at how Sean Connery owned James Bond.” Steven Moffat, producer and writer


“He’s a stick shift; he’s changing up and changing down. He’s a Porsche 911.” Gary Oldman, actor


“I would like to officialy declare my love for Benedict Cumberbatch. Yes, that’s right. I’m in love with him.” Paul Feig, director


“He’s an immersive actor; he’s physical. You have to keep feeding him, trying to keep him stimulated. The engine has to be stoked all the time. The joke is that Hollywood thinks it’s investigating him right now to see what he’s made of. The truth is: He’s investigating them.” Danny Boyle, director


“Watching him physically train to play James (He dieted, ran the cliffs and swam in the cold sea), and also delve into the meaning of every line in rehearsals, and then plot the effect of his illness on his body and mind as it would be in each scene (shot in the wrong order), while all the while being a joy to be around was impressive to witness. To see it as one performance in the final cut was remarkable. - He is rare even amongst the acting breed. If the character description says handsome: he is. If it says Nasty: he is. Older: he is… Younger: he is. For this reason I just can’t wait to see what he will become.” Vaughan Sivell, producer and screen writer („Third Star“)


“Being on the set with him… I think everyone was bringing their absolute A-game. I think, frankly, in a way, [his] presence sort of elevated everything. Time and again, every scene, Benedict brought a surprising, unexpected, grounded, real and often terrifying aspect to the role. So we are incredibly grateful, all of us.” JJ Abrams, director


“Benedict Cumberbatch is one of my very favorite — excuse me, favourite — actors today, and he brought his brilliant mixture of confidence and strength to Khan in a way that, with all due respect, Montalban never did. Never once does Cumberbatch make the obvious choice, his performance is always subtle, always controlled, and when he finally goes full-Khan, scary as hell.” Will Wheaton, actor


“I think he’ll be one of the guys who lasts, that’s my take. It’s what George [Clooney] said to me ten years ago: If you can pull off ten years in this business, then you’ve done something, and we both kind of agreed that that was kind of the benchmark. And I think [Cumberbatch] is of the new crop.” Matt Damon, actor


“Benedict Cumberbatch is truly one of the greatest actors I’ve ever seen. And my favorite thing about him in this movie is that instead of his bad guy being adorned and wearing some crazy mask and costume and hair… he is just a simple man standing in a black shirt and black pants, just a common man… and his performance is so powerful in it’s simplicity… and that to me was an incredibly exciting thing to see: how little he needed to be that powerful.” JJ Abrams, director


“When he was at school, parents came to see him in plays their own children weren’t in - THAT is how good he is.” Tatler magazine


“Yes, Benedict has darkness. He has a light, brilliance, wit, sophistication, an imposing presence. He’s threatening; he’s physical. He’s also sympathetic. He does these things and makes it all look so damn easy. And the other actors … it was so funny. Every time we were doing a scene with Benedict, they were standing a little bit taller. He has a presence that is ridiculous and that voice, oh my God. There wasn’t a day working with Benedict that I didn’t think, this is insane. He elevated that moment. He made that thing that I thought was going to be really hard, authentic. He’s not like his character in any way, physically or emotionally, but he transformed himself physically. He was suddenly this wildly intimidating big guy. And he’s not. When you talk to him, he’s sort of slight. But in the movie, I spent a year editing him (Benedict’s footage). So it was like I got to see him every day. I got so used to him as that character. So when I saw him again recently, I thought, God, he’s so small, compared to how he is in the movie—he’s so epic. He is an utter chameleon who I think can do anything. He’s one of the best actors I’ve ever seen, let alone worked with. He was able to bring all of these incredible nuances and attitude to a role that in lesser hands would not have worked remotely that well.” JJ Abrams, director

Some Characteristics of SP Types

SUBMITTED by saintmichaelthearchangel

The SP types – ISFP, ISTP, ESFP & ESTP are a broad group of people who are diverse. Yet sadly, there isn’t much discussion about them, so I decided to write something about why I love being an SP and to hopefully break up some misconceptions.

We value independence and being ourselves. Freedom is a word that fills us up with joy. SPs use either Fi or Ti- two functions that pride themselves on alternative, different ways of thinking. But restraining an SP? The problems will be bigger than you think- SPs love the idea of freedom, choice and agency. Could you imagine bossing Han Solo around? Would not work out. We live through our own rules.

We’re quite prone to being rebellious… in our own ways.  Whether it’s a quiet way… like a painting advocating for others, Harry and Ron flying a car to school, or the antics of Captain Cold… or even starting a war (looking at you, Daenerys Targaryen). SPs certainly can be fiery.


We can detect when you are talking trash,

and we’ll say what we think. Remember in the first season of Game Of Thrones, where Arya realized the true reality of Joffrey quite quickly? And how Arya made it quite clear how she felt? That’s Fi… but its also Se. Se has no desire to hide itself away from the realities of the environment. Another one would be Frederick Chilton tapping into Se and Ti, and becoming more suspicious of Hannibal Lecter. SPs can make sharp, analytical critics.

We like pleasure… but we’re still a bit picky about what pleases us. Our tastes are pretty distinct and particular. SP’s may be sensory… but we want good sensory experiences. It’s important to the likes of Queenie Goldstein that she finds comfort and enjoyment in her beautiful clothes and nightclub experiences.

We’re rather objective. If someone is acting like a jerk and trying to cover it up… we’ll see through the lies and manipulation. It’s important to us that our instincts remain sharp and lovely. There’s a scene in Firefly where Malcolm Reynolds (ESFP) knows that Jayne sold out River and Simon. How does Malcolm know? Because he’s paying attention to his external environment, he’s taking information in and being aware. There is an example of Se being wonderfully sharp.
Not only are we physical (engaging in our environment), but we are good at it. I’m not talking PE- but inserting ourselves in a range of situations. The show Orphan Black for instance- Helena and Sarah can impersonate their sisters so well! SPs do have some pretty cool skills!  

Not only are we physical (engaging in our environment), but we are good at it. I’m not talking PE- but inserting ourselves in a range of situations. The show Orphan Black for instance- Helena and Sarah can impersonate their sisters so well! SPs do have some pretty cool skills!  

SPs can experience sensory overload. They are still SPs. Sensory Overload can happen due to how much noise is generated, mental and physical health, how much rest you have had. No, not every SP can party for hours on end, we all find the idea of sleeping in a cosy bed very comforting- as do SPs. Everyone has limits to how much ‘exposure’ they can have. Like what I said about Se being picky, an ISFP may find a party to be grating and unpleasant… but enjoy going for a swim. 


We’re smarter than the MBTI community thinks,

and we can be very cunning and savvy. Just as much as any N type. Oh, and just as thoughtful, imaginative “deep” and unique. N types don’t own those things. Winston Churchill? Accepted as an ESTP by many. Sherlock Holmes, from the BBC series? Also- STP. Other smart SPs include Mozart and Michelangelo. American Presidents throughout history? Ronald Reagan, John F. Kennedy, Andrew Jackson, Franklin Roosevelt, Ulysses S. Grant and Bill Clinton. The founder of Twitter? Jack Dorsey, ISTP. George Patton? Also an SP. Alexander The Great? Another SP.


The abstract does not frighten us.

It does not make us burst into tears. It does not scare us, it does not give us nightmares and we certainly don’t need a condescending intuitive to hold our hands. Like said in 8, we are capable of great complexity. What we want to do is to express our inner selves- hence why labels such as ‘the composers’ and ‘the artist’ are attributed to us. We are certainly capable of creating original thought. Look at Arwen from Lord Of The Rings. She can keep up with Elrond just fine, but still maintains her ground and has opinions. Complete SP who is very reflective, deep and complex.

I made this post to appreciate the SP, and I hope I was successful in clearing up some very annoying misconceptions! I love being an SP, and it does sadden me that we are often reduced to ‘fixers’. We are so much more.

anonymous asked:

Hi! I've just discoreved this site and I'm so TRILLED! It's AMAZING, I love you! :) But to the question: OK, Sherlock loves John, so.. why was he acting so wierd in SiB, after The Woman left the country (him), he was really sad, looked depressed, wasn't talking for days, was composing sad music, he acted as if she broke his heart.. as if he was indeed IN LOVE WITH HER. Why do you think he behaved like that, he shouldn't have been if he didn't have ANY feelings for her! It's really bothering me..

Hi, and thank you so much!!

That’s a great question, and I get lots of Irene asks, so I’m just going to go for it here…

Irene Adler: The Woman, The Myth, The Meta

Let’s start with A Scandal in Bohemia. Often, when writers set out to create another Sherlock Holmes adaptation, they decide to use Irene Adler as his love interest, despite the fact that she only actually appears in one canonical story. Why? Because she’s beautiful and clever. So naturally canon-Sherlock was in love with her.

Of course, anyone who actually bothered reading the story knows that isn’t the case at all. 

Canon Sherlock Holmes is intrigued by Irene. She’s highly intelligent and she outsmarts him. He keeps a photograph of her as a souvenir once they part ways as a reminder of the woman who beat him. 

If I had to make a list of guesses to Canon Sherlock Holmes’s sexual orientation, “straight” wouldn’t even crack the top five. So it irks me to no end that people assume his interest in Irene must be sexual. God forbid he really is just impressed with her mind. Who cares how powerful her brains are?? Look at her boobs, for chrissake!

There was no romance between them in the canon story. Period. 

I imagine Moffat and Gatiss were beside themselves with glee when they wrote this episode. They made it through the first season loading all three shows with crazy homoerotic subtext, setting up the beginning of their slow build to Johnlock, reading reviews and criticism that pointed out All The Gay while at the same time heralding it a fine bromance, with a minority of fans crying “queerbait.” Queerbaiting? the writers thought. No no no. Quite the opposite, dears. Just you wait.

Enter: The Woman.

Keep reading

10 british shows you probably don’t watch (but you should)

so, i, though i’m british, could name you the smallest, most indie american shows. but i’ve been thinking recently about how there are so many british shows people outside of the uk/europe might not have seen and what a shame that is.

it’s a shame bc, well, these shows are iconic in britain and they are some of the best shows i have ever seen. and whilst everyone else was raving about downton, or doctor who, these well known, renowned shows got missed out. so, here. here’s a list. go watch them. go love them. then talk to me about them. happy watching! (EDIT: posts two, three and four , five and six  and seven  and eight  and nine

1. Life on mars / Ashes to ashes

remember john simm as the master in doctor who? well we also know him as Sam Tyler in life on mars - a modern day police officer who, after a car accident, wakes up in the seventies. yep. A CRIME SHOW ABOUT TIME TRAVEL. the show is continued in ashes to ashes where a modern day police officer, after she’s shot, wakes up in the eighties. they are both forced to work with the iconic Gene Hunt, who is exactly what you would expect from a hard af 70′s northener. are they in a coma? are they back in time? you’ll just have to watch it. plus, they are named after david bowie songs, so

2. silk

silk stars the incomparable Maxine Peake as Martha Costello, a defense laywer. a real, front line look into the british legal system with one of the most charismatic female leads. clever, classy and heartbreaking. Maxine Peake steals every single scene. also it has rupert penry jones doing stuff, so that’s always good.

3. silent witness

this is iconic because it’s been going on for 20 years - but don’t worry, it’s small seasons. but god do they pack a lot in. it focuses on a team of forensic pathologists who use their skills to help the police. smart, dark at times, this is classic british high brow drama. it’s famous. but you don’t have to watch it from s1 if you don’t want - you could skip to s8 where we meet the arguably more well known team of leo, harry and nikki - nikki is played by emilia fox, who is of course, a queen among mortals.

4. last tango in halifax

this is set in the yorkshire town of halifax and centers around two families that are brought together when celia and alan reunite and fall in love after sixty years. this is realistic, emotional, funny well done family drama. there is one scene in s1 that brought me out of a dark mood for like 3 days because the writing is just so real. it’s also set not far from where i live, so you get to see what northen england actually looks like now as opposed to in a medieval world…

5. hustle

oh my god, this show. somtimes cheesy, sometimes so cool - always and forever a favourite. this centers around a rag tag group of con men. but don’t worry, they have a code. they only con the people that deserve it. fun, slick, it did the pausing and talking to the camera thing way before house of lies. found family vibes all round, you will love these characters. one of which is played by jaimie murray, before she played a villain in every american sci fi show.

6.  luther

ok, so you probably know about this one. the beautiful, majestic, “mountain of a man” that is idris elba, solving crimes. but this one is different - he’t not just another maverick who’s just a bit annoying, or rude (side eyes every wannabe sherlock on tv) oh no. Luther pulls doors of their hinges with his bare hands, he lets killers fall from buildings. he has various goings on with a beautiful serial killer, you know, romantic stylez. and she’s brilliant too. 

7. the fixer

an ex army sniper was sent to prison for killing the people that abused his sister - only he’s let out early to become, you guessed it, a fixer, or in other words, an assassin - for a secret group working with the police to take down crime. dark and gritty but it also comes with humour, found family vibes and of course, a little bit of romance.

8. strike back

richard armitage and rhona mitra being sweaty and attractive in the desert, need i say more? oh, really? fine. an elite group of ex military and special forces operatives working out of mi6. dealing with diplomatic situations overseas. basically a non stop action movie with quite good looking people in it.

9. peaky blinders

AMAZING OH MY GOD, the pretty much true story about the shelby family. one of the largest crime families in 1930′s birmingham. cillian murphy dealing with violence, ptsd, crime, women, spies. it’s breathtaking. also, helen mcrory bossing it up. MUST WATCH. addictive and gritty and clever.

10. being human

last but not least the have the original being human. yes they remade it, but can anything compare to the original? before he was running around in new zeland, and before they named his american counterpart after him (which we all thought was weird ok) aiden turner was playing a vampire in being human, who lived with a ghost and a werewolf. poignant, dark, hilarious and tragic. one of my favourite shows. somehow a supernatural show manages to capture something of what it means to be out of place, to be human more than half the ‘real life’ shows on right now. despite the cast change half way through, imo it remains just as good till the end. also they never excuse any of the vampire’s quite frankly shitty behavior, the way other shows will (side eyes tvd). examines the way we deal with addiction, violence and impulse control and what we can forgive.

“I’m Not An Addict”

This is a meta about Sherlock’s drug addiction.  Obviously, if you are triggered by such discussions, now’s the time to stop reading.

Okay so I was watching ASIP a little bit ago and I noticed that Sherlock seems very interested in John right from the beginning. So why does he turn him down? Why does he say “I’m married to my work”? Then I remembered something. When you get out of rehab, they tell you no relationships for two years, because you risk your recovery if you jump right into a relationship. If Sherlock got out of rehab 2-3 months before ASIP, then the two years runs out sometime between THOB and TRF, which is when John and Sherlock are at their closest. I think Sherlock had every intention to tell John he loved him before the Moriarty thing happened. And that he waited 18 months to tell John because he didn’t want to risk the friendship, the potential relationship, and his recovery. Because if Sherlock would have tried to have a romantic relationship with John that soon after rehab, it would have crashed and burned. And “I’m flattered by your interest, but I’m married to my work” sounds a hell of a lot better than “I just got out of rehab and I need to focus on me for a little bit.” Sherlock never has been disinterested in John. He just did not want to mess this up.

Okay so how do we get from Sherlock planning and waiting to tell John to Sherlock overdosing before the Tarmac? The key is “I’m not an addict, I’m a user.” Sherlock doesn’t see his addiction as the problem. He doesn’t consider the drugs a problem. He thinks it’s his meddling brother, or his broken heart, or his brain chemistry, or a hundred other things that Sherlock could think of to rationalize it. One of the first steps to true recovery is admitting drugs are the problem and not a solution to other problems in your life. If you never address this, along with what made you use in the first place, you can go through as many rehab programs as you want, but you’ll never actually recover.

So why was Sherlock even in rehab in the first place, if he didn’t think drugs were the problem? This is where Mycroft comes in. Mycroft taking care of Sherlock is pretty much the only reason he’s still alive. In that scene in TAB, Mycroft looks young. Around late twenties. Which means Sherlock was about 19-20 years old there. Which means Sherlock probably started using in high school, not uni.

Sometimes it’s hard to know how to help someone with an addiction. Sherlock used intravenous drugs in the 90’s, a very dangerous thing, especially for a gay man. I think early on, Mycroft enabled Sherlock more than he helped him. I think in a lot of ways, Mycroft enabling Sherlock is what kept him from doing a lot worse to get drugs. That in a lot of ways, it’s the reason Sherlock’s still alive.

At some point, Mycroft realized that enabling Sherlock really isn’t the best way to help him. At some point, the rules changed. Instead of giving Sherlock money, Mycroft would buy or help pay for anything Sherlock needed. For Sherlock to get any help from Mycroft now, he had to be trying to get clean. Instead of sending a text to tell Mycroft he’s fine, Mycroft makes him call so he can hear how bad Sherlock is. Instead of trying to guess how much he’s taken, Mycroft makes him write it down.

I think this is the reason, or one of them, that Sherlock is so mad at Mycroft. The rules changed. He used to not interfere as much. Hell, he probably paid for the drugs before. And now the dynamic changed. I think the final straw was Mycroft making him go to rehab. I think not only did Mycroft tell Sherlock he would no longer help him if he didn’t go to rehab, he paid for it as well. I think it was Mycroft who bought Sherlock all the suits, who got him connected with Scotland Yard, who made sure his reputation was that he was brilliant, not that he had been using drugs since he was a teenager. I don’t think Sherlock made himself, not as much as he’d lead us to believe anyway. I think Mycroft made him the man we see in the beginning of ASIP.

Many people have already picked up on the fact that for Sherlock, it’s drugs or John. I think it’s literally drugs or John. I think anytime John is not living at Baker Street, Sherlock is doing drugs. That after the disaster that is the restaurant scene in TEH, Sherlock starts taking drugs again. Maybe not a whole lot (for Sherlock’s standards) but I honestly think that the drug den and the Tarmac scene are not isolated incidents. I think Sherlock spent the nine months between John’s wedding and when he shot Magnusson high, the only time it being noticeable to everyone else being the drug den and the tarmac scene. The fact that Sherlock was that high and talking to John and John didn’t notice anything different I think proves it. And like Sherlock says at the end there, “I don’t need drugs, I’ve got the real thing.”

So, why all the drugs right before he left John? Like a lot of people have said, I think partly it was so Sherlock would have the courage to finally tell John. But I think it was also Sherlock wanting to choose how he died. That he didn’t want to spend six months in Eastern Europe, thinking about how he’d never see John again. I think his plan was very much to tell John he loved him and then die while reading about how they met. That he took whatever he could get. Cocaine, leftover pain pills from the gunshot, anything Mrs Hudson had for her hip, any herbal soothers Mrs Hudson had. All of it. Anything you could get high off of at Baker Street, I think he smuggled it and took it.

Why would Sherlock need drugs to tell John he loved him? I think Sherlock is painfully insecure about anything that is not his deductive skills and maybe also possibly his hair. Sherlock doesn’t think he’s worth anything besides that. He doesn’t think he matters enough to hurt him. From the very beginning, John thinks Sherlock is too good, too smart, to be a drug addict. He thinks that in ASIP with the fake drug bust and he thinks that on the plane. That Sherlock doesn’t need drugs to be brilliant. The problem is, Sherlock thinks he does need the drugs. He thinks that he needs them to tell John he loves him. And he couldn’t even tell him when he was that high.

Remember when MP John found Sherlock high? How upset John was? Yelling at Sherlock. Sherlock thinks that he can’t be the person John needs him to be without drugs, and he can’t be confident enough without the drugs to try and be that person. Sherlock thinks that John is going to kill him when he finds out. The good news, the bright  spot in all of this, is that John doesn’t. He touches him softly and asks if he’s alright.

tagging some people @cakepopsforeveryone @figmentsoffiction @ewebie

The Lying Detective/Scheria

We focus on Sherlock, of course we do, because he’s the hero and because he’s interesting and unpredictable and always this close to falling apart in some way that, we know, will be catastrophic for everyone. So we look at him hallucinating a childhood long past and we marvel at him being all soft with this woman he doesn’t remember and we listen to him shouting Shakespearean verses with a gun in his hand and we look, most of all, at how the world literally revolves around him, turning and spinning on its axis until Sherlock decides he’s human, after all, and finally goes to sleep like the curly-haired, tantrum-prone toddler he is.

But the story, we know, is really about John, because this is normally his story: he’s the narrator, and he’s the one who helps us to make sense of this world of mirrors and weird crimes we’ve stepped into. And we know precisely how much we owe him, because without him, nothing makes any sense (look at TAB) - which is why the tragedy of Mary’s death is tragic not only for the very real, tangible loss John experienced, but for this other thing he lost: his wish to tell stories (his wish, in the end, to be himself).

I called this meta Scheria because John is not the first character to face this particular challenge. When Odysseus comes to Nausicaa’s island, Scheria, he’s been through ten years of war and ten years of weirdness, cannibalism and mindfucking. Nausicaa finds him alone and naked, because that’s who our character is, at that point: not a warrior, not a king, not a pirate; not the commander of a ship, and not even someone who has a wife and a father and a son and friends in distant lands. No, after so many years of blood and loss, Odysseus has finally become the fabric of his own lies: he is No One. If he’d been shipwrecked on Ithaca instead of Scheria, he certainly wouldn’t have had the strength to reclaim his throne, or the confidence to attempt it. But, luckily for him, Scheria is not an island of monsters. Nausicaa may be a ‘burner of ships’, as her name implies, but the world she welcomes Odysseus into will put him back together, because in Scheria, thousands of years before Freud sat down and decided talking out loud was a kind of therapy, Odysseus is invited to tell his story, and it is because he tells his story that this nameless castaway becomes himself again. As he talks - and he talks a lot, by the way: his tale is a long as a professional poet’s, and full of monsters and beauty and sex - Odysseus seems to become the person he was when he first left for Troy. A strong, dangerously smart king who’s not afraid to fight for what’s his and loves his wife more than anything.

(I’ll stop here because it seems decent, but I literally wrote papers about this stuff and I could talk all day about The Odyssey, so if you’re interested send me an ask.)

Now, John is going through a similar thing at the beginning of TLD: he’s shipwrecked and alone, completely separated from the people who used to give meaning to his life and define his place in the world. His wife is dead, he can’t be a father to Rosie, he has no friends he can be open with (nobody, after all, seems to even know he’s seeing a therapist) and, most of all, he’s completely cut Sherlock out of his life. 

But if this is the episode John is completely broken, it’s also the episode he fights to get back to his own Ithaca.

Personally, I saw the beginning of his journey back home in his endearing mix-up of the words ‘acceptable’ and ‘understandable’ in the very first minutes of the episode. We often forget about it, but this very factual and no-nonsense army doctor is, first and foremost, a writer. He doesn’t chronicle Sherlock’s cases: he writes fiction about it, so much so we know sometimes Sherlock grumbles about the changes and deviations form reality. And when you write fiction, well - you can’t write what you don’t understand, so everything becomes understandable - from death to grief to acts of extreme cruelty. When you write, you step inside the head of your characters, which is why, perhaps, John simply gets Sherlock in a way no one else really does: not only because he loves Sherlock, but because he actively becomes Sherlock as he fleshes out character!Sherlock on the pages of his blog. But when John’s caught in the worst tragedy of his life, suddenly he doesn’t want to be a writer any longer (he can’t). We know he neglects his blog, rejects, perhaps, both his relationship with Sherlock and this aspect of himself - his writer self, the man who could justify and explain away everything that ever happens - put it into prose and be done with it.

(I know that’s certainly how I feel when I grieve for someone I’ve lost.)

So, to me, his outburst to his therapist really spoke volumes about his mental and emotional health.

“Why does everything have to be understandable? Why can’t some things be unacceptable and we just say that?”

Because, John, that’s not how fiction works. 

In fiction, everything must be understandable - to the writer, if not the readers. And the fact John doesn’t seem to get it - that he doesn’t get the difference between two very different words of the English language, despite being highly educated and a writer - really shows how profound his dissociation is right now - an issue that is made apparent by having Mary at his side, of course, but also manifests itself in more subtle ways. John was not simply a husband, and Sherlock’s best friend. Writing is an important part of who he is, and it is also, I think, something Sherlock is trying to give back to him by begging John to accompany him on his Smith case.

(“I would be lost without my blogger.”)

And Sherlock, as usual, was right, because it’s precisely when his role as a writer is openly challenged that John starts to fight back. Of course, John starts his path back to himself when he has to admit he still cares about Sherlock - when he leaves Sherlock out of the boot of the car and into the sacred place of a therapy session - but until they arrive at the hospital and Nurse Cornish questions his role at Sherlock’s side (“Are you involved much? I love his blog, don’t you?”), John was listless at best - a sort of Okay, so Sherlock’s dying too - great news, because what can I do about it I am a mess everything I touch dies and someone make it STOP - but after that, he starts to realize his old self was worthwile, and he starts to actively reclaim it. Look at him in that room full of children: before Smith took over and made it creepy, that scene was about John rediscovering himself. Faced with people who neither really know who he is, or even care about him and his role at Sherlock’s side, John suddenly fights back by doing what he does best: turning Sherlock’s fast-as-lightning thought process and disconnected sentences into stories people can enjoy. Stories that make Sherlock get more cases, sure, but, mostly, stories that help people smile and cry and yell out loud; stories that make sense of the disorderly and chaotic and brutal world we all live in.

Sherlock catches that, of course, and understands how important it is: his only real smile this episode blossomed right there - when I’m no good to anyone, leave me the hell alone John Watson stands up a bit straighter and looks a killer in the eye and tells him, “No one’s untouchable”. This is John caring again - this is John forgetting, if only for a split second, about the current black mess his life has turned into and being himself instead; accepting that the person he is still has value, despite his wife’s death.

(God, I wish I could gif - look at this beauty - at Smith completely lost in his own narcissistic trip - at how angry John is, how he just blurts out the words without even thinking - at how Sherlock snaps out of whatever thought he was chasing and looks up at him and smiles - someone kill me right now.)

So, well, I’m not worried. Whatever happens next, John will be okay.

[As ever - thank you for reading. The second part of this meta, the Johnlock part, will be up tomorrow.]

I will stand by The Final Problem as a really good episode. Though after having time to think back on it, no, it’s not as great as I thought it was. I do, however, think the fandom reaction to it has gone past ‘a bit much‘ and well into insane.

And you know what, I get it to an extent. But we’ve gone way past that extent by now. A lot of the things people complain about are pretty minor. Some aren’t, for sure. Sherlock playing the violin with someone who basically murdered his best friend was… odd. Teasing Moriarty like that eased felt low, and there were much more screw ups in this one episode than the rest of the show combined (particularly the chain thing). It’s also the perfect example of why TV shows should only move forward. Because this episode has raised more questions than it answered. But not about what’s to come, but what about what already happened. So the other episodes are now cast in a shadow they can’t avoid until future episodes shed light on it.

With that being said: still not a bad episode. Like I said, most of the ‘huge problems’ fans can’t shut up about are pretty small. Plus, you guys need to learn the difference between ‘plot hole’ and ‘plot convenience’. And compared to Moffat’s last attempt at a finale, this is freaking gold. The stuff that’s good in this episode is on par with some of Sherlock’s best episodes.

Euros is the best villain since Moriarty. She’s smarter than Sherlock, colder, she can manipulate him, and the history they share is interesting in theory. I know the whole ‘Euros is jigsaw‘ thing is meant to be a joke, but honestly, this is the best Saw movie ever. Mainly because it focuses on emotional and psychological torture, not just non stop gore. And the emotions in this episode hit the mark every time. I got chills when Sherlock smashed the coffin.

But most importantly: it. fucking. tried.

If Mark and Steven fail here, they do so attempting to make an honestly good finale to a show that by now has god like expectations. They tried to tell a smart, compelling story that took it’s characters to new places and leave the stage set for other stories to come. Did it fail? Maybe. Maybe not.

But this is still the same two writers who wanted to add a modern spin to stories they loved back in 2010. This is the same group of actors who could not be better for their parts. This is the same film and editing crew putting their all into every shot. This is the same group of people who want to make Sherlock fanfiction to the highest budget and quality they can. You can tell in the final scene that all anyone wanted was to tell a good Sherlock Holmes story. They never wanted to stab the fandom in the back.

Fail or not, to quote another Moffat story: Better to fail in doing the right thing than succeed in doing the wrong.

ineharnia  asked:

(1)I thought of looking it up but I think I'll ask you as well because you give nice answers. I was talking with someone about Sherlock and she said she didn't like the third season. After questioning her it turned out she didn't like HLV (that's the

third episode, right? She didn’t like the third one) and specifically she didn’t like that Sherlock killed Magnussen because she thinks it’s completely out of character because Sherlock’s supposed to be moral and smart enough to think of a better way. So I wanted to ask you why Sherlock killed Magnussen and couldn’t think of a better way to deal with him. Also I’m probably gonna see her again in August, so no pressure in answering soon (since you said you’re under pressure with your meta). Thank you in advance!


Hi lovely!

This is as a general whole and not directed specifically to your friend, spoken from someone who studies Sherlock’s character FAR too much. 

Firstly, yes, it was HLV, the episode that won the series seven Emmys, one of them being for Outstanding Writing. Obviously they’re doing something right that a lot of people are failing to see. 

Secondly, there’s a huge chunk of time missing in HLV which covers at LEAST six months. We know NOTHING about what happened in those six months except that John presumedly wasn’t staying with Mary and Sherlock was either at home or the hospital recovering. I think during that time some side plan was coming to fruition behind the scenes (my thought is between John and Mycroft); everything at Appledore went TOO smoothly so I suspect there’s something else going on in the background with Mycroft and Sherlock, at least until Sherlock went and flubbed it up. In light of TAB, I now truly don’t think Sherlock and John have or had something planned TOGETHER to flush Mary out, since it was in TAB that Sherlock realized he needs to work with John and then they will be unstoppable. BUT, I do think John himself may have, in the 6 months away from Mary, secretly had a “plan B” in the works: he’s a soldier at his core, and a captain at that, so I don’t know why people think it’s so beyond John’s capabilities for him to actually think ahead on this stuff… pretty damned smart, after all. 

Next, here’s what I don’t get about people who think it’s OOC for Sherlock to have killed Magnussen (and it’s not, btw… I believe he does kill people in canon even): What exactly do they think Sherlock did for 2 years “taking down Moriarty’s network”? That phrase alone holds a lot of weight as to what it implies. It’s clear he was at least tortured and held captive for extended periods of time, and the subdued nature of his S3 character suggests that he wasn’t having tea and crumpets with the Queen everyday nor was he on holidays in Hawaii. It’s hinted at by Mycroft that Sherlock had literally been on non-stop missions for the past two years, and none of them were fun, and I highly doubt Sherlock just… didn’t NOT kill people while on those missions; while it’s not explicitly stated that he did, it’s hinted at throughout the exchange between he and his brother:

MYCROFT: You have been busy, haven’t you? […]
MYCROFT: Quite the busy little bee. (He chuckles.)
SHERLOCK: Moriarty’s network – took me two years to dismantle it.
MYCROFT: And you’re confident you have?
SHERLOCK: The Serbian side was the last piece of the puzzle.
MYCROFT: Yes. You got yourself in deep there … (he checks his report) … with Baron Maupertuis. Quite a scheme.
SHERLOCK: Colossal.
MYCROFT (shutting the file): Anyway, you’re safe now.
SHERLOCK: Hmm.
MYCROFT: A small ‘thank you’ wouldn’t go amiss.
SHERLOCK: What for?
MYCROFT: For wading in.
(Sherlock raises a hand to the barber to make him stop shaving him. The man steps back a little.)
MYCROFT: In case you’d forgotten, fieldwork is not my natural milieu.

The reason Sherlock’s killing is not spoken out directly is because then murder of Magnussen wouldn’t have been as shocking; IT LESSENS THE IMPACT OF THE ACT. If it was explicitly stated “I killed people” then Sherlock killing Magnussen is just another day in the park for Sherlock. BUT, relegating it to an unspoken act, one that Sherlock does SELFLESSLY to save a life, well then, that makes it mean so much more. We see that he isn’t doing it for funsies: he’s doing it because he wants to protect John (and it WAS for John, not Mary; they made it clear on the importance of pressure points and the chains in them, so by protecting Mary, Sherlock saves John’s life). 

It’s like one of the many reasons I think why the deleted scene was been removed – the cruelty in the scene makes Magnussen’s shooting seem personal to Sherlock, rather than a selfless act done for John.

As long as Magnussen was alive, he was never going to let up on threatening Mary and by extension John; Sherlock tried going the Mycroft route and it failed. He tried gaining Mary’s information manually, and it failed. So Sherlock thought John would not be safe unless Magnussen was gone for good, so he did what he felt he had to when the person he loved was threatened; he killed a man.

As I mentioned earlier, being able to commit this act is suspicious as well… how did John get into C.A.M.’s private home without being searched when back at Baker Street he was patted down before C.A.M. even stepped into the common area of the flat? It’s very suspect that there is something else at work, and someone higher than Mycroft may have wanted C.A.M. gone for good and was counting on Sherlock’s unpredictable nature. Hopefully this will be touched upon in S4.

Look, Sherlock HAS been violent before with people who threatened people he cares about – Mrs Hudson in ASiB with the CIA agents – so imagine what Sherlock could possibly do when he actually LOVES someone, KNOWS he’s in love, and wants to keep them safe? He’ll kill himself (TRF), he’ll sacrifice his happiness for that person (all of S3), he’ll risk getting killed again (HLV), he’ll kill someone for flicking his love in the face.

It’s a common trope in romantic storytelling – the hero does something dramatic and selfless, sacrificing his life or freedom to save the one they love. Everything Sherlock has ever done was for John, and always will be for John.

As for season three seeming completely different, this is because we are watching the season from Sherlock’s eyes; people are upset because Sherlock views the world differently than people had envisioned him to being: he’s actually a very sad, lonely man who is very soft, cares deeply for his family and friends, loves his best friend but doesn’t know how to cope with that, and all he wants is to have his life that he fucked up back to what it was before. NOTHING CHANGED except maybe Sherlock’s character growth from a great man to a good man and Sherlock coming to accept sentiment as part of that character.

Visual Pleasure and Narrative Sherlock pt. 2: Objectifying The Woman

(Pt. 1, Watching the Detective)

So if your detective’s too pretty and all the girls & boys & others are looking at him a bit too much and a bit too wrong, then you gotta straighten things out. You better bring in a woman, sexualize the fuck out of her, and make clear that she’s the object of a desiring gaze that is obviously male—a gaze that is, at least in part, Sherlock’s. This gives the show a heterosexual object and tries to make Sherlock a heterosexual subject (that is, she’s the object that’s wanted, and he’s the subject who wants). I say “tries”: Sherlock looks at Irene, naked and clothed, intimately and not, but I see no sign that he ever takes erotic pleasure in it. I see no sexuality in his gaze. For Sherlock, Irene is not the object of desire but the object of deduction: it’s not pleasure he takes from the looking, it’s knowledge. And of course knowledge is power. This is the project of “A Scandal in Belgravia”: to bring in Irene Adler, align her with Sherlock and his deductive power, and then disempower her by making her the erotic object and him the knowing subject. In other words, she’s the source of visual pleasure, and he’s the source of narrative power. 

The episode identifies Sherlock with Irene with a long series of cross-cuts, camera angles, framing, and plot devices. These audacious mirrorings and doublings link them in a complex exchange of power and knowledge. They are paired, and at first Irene’s on top, visually and in terms of her power to move the plot along by temporarily beating Sherlock at the information game. But in the end, he outsmarts her and wins. The upshot is fairly simple and very traditional: Irene = sexual female body, Sherlock = rational male mind, with sexuality less powerful than rationality. So much, so obvious. But the episode just works so damn hard to do this—why? I think it’s because to this point in the series, Sherlock, in his beauty, his visual centrality, and most of all in his relation to John, has presented an unusual model of masculinity, complicated and perhaps contradictory—and ever so queer. This episode tries to straighten that out; in the end, however, it doesn’t fully succeed.

The first glimpse we have of Irene is her hand on her phone, where she keeps all that dangerous information, and then her negligéed ass walking toward a certain royal female person.

So this is Irene’s power at the start: information, and sexual agency. (To wit: information about sex.) In this she challenges Sherlock: in an early image we look at a photo of him in his fame and deductive power, and at her hand in its beauty and sensuality, covering up his face.

“I’m going to get you,” that hand says. (Yep, it’s a gorgeous object—but note that hands are also symbols of selfhood and agency, for they are how we manipulate, use tools, and touch.)

Keep reading

“The Abominable Bride” meta - Part 6 - the Reichenbach Falls and a theory

Alternative title 1: Why Moftiss were honest when they said it is an one-off but it still proceeds some things
Alternative title 2: Why I still leave a small room in the hopes Moriarty isn’t literally dead yet.

Alternative title 3: Why perhaps there aren’t as many layers - levels as you think!


All TAB metas can be found in this link.

So, I took a break before going on with last three scenes which basically are the terror of this episode.

Let’s start with the most important one: The Reichenbach Falls. 

As I’ve already said many times, all the victorian scenes we had seen so far were nothing more than the actual modern show transferred in the victorian era. (See part 1, part 2 and part 5 if you want all the parallels.) The modern scenes were the ones which brought the element of the new by giving us more information about what happens inside Sherlock’s mind and heart. The modern scenes so far were dreamy sequences of the Victorian Holmes. We will need to get to the end of the episode to see whether this fact changes.  I’ve also stated my firm belief that there is an over-analyzing going around - there are not 7,8 or 9 mind palace drug levels in TAB. There are 3 or 4 at the maximum, it depends on the viewpoint. In my opinion, the Victorian scenes so far were level 1, the modern ones were level 2. Sherlock doesn’t go deeper and deeper every time - he goes in and out of his stupor. So this makes for two levels so far.

After the corpse falls all over Sherlock (which is the ultimate proof the modern scenes are fake), Holmes wakes in the Reichenbach Falls, Moriarty watching him. 

Now, BEHOLD THE PROBLEM:

Keep reading

You know what makes me really pissed right now?

On platforms other than tumblr there are loads of people joking about how the fandom is going crazy now because The Kiss™ didn’t happen.


NO.

Fuck you. That’s not why we’re angry.

Of course a kiss would have been awesome, but personally I never believed it to happen anyway, and I would have even lived happily ever after with less Johnlock scenes than we got in the end, even though I ship them like crazy - if only the rest of the plot would have made some sort of sense.


You wanna know what’s bothering me about the (supposedly) final problem?


1. Moriarty was hyped up as the ultimate villain for three seasons and frankly, almost everyone loved him. The creators themselves made such a big fuss about him - only to have him replaced by another supervillain out of nowhere. Moriarty was the ultimate mystery and his reveal was basically “actually he’s just a maniac sidekick executing Eurus’ plans who was kinda bored with living anyway so he killed himself just for the fun of it”. I know they made it hard for themselves to have a truly mind-blowing plot twist with Moriarty since they’ve been stirring his story up for more than two years and expectations were high, but this was anticlimactic and disappointing on a new level.


2. I don’t know much about storytelling, but I do sense that this was bad.
For the last three seasons, there have always been subtle and not-so-subtle hints as towards what is going to happen next. Everything was connected and logical to follow and quite frankly, this unique way of building up a plot was one of the things that made me fall in love with this show.
Compared to what we have experienced in former episodes, this whole fourth season was utter bullshit. Sure, the basic storyline was connected with the other seasons, but only superficially; most of the “"plot twists”“ happened out of nowhere and made the whole series feel very estranged all of a sudden. E.g., in TRF Moriarty said “Have you worked out what it is yet? The final problem? I did tell you… But did you listen?” - Typical Mofftiss style would have been that some very inconspicious Moriarty line somehow hinted at him pairing up with Sherlock’s unknown sister to “play a game” or destroy Sherlock or seek revenge or whatever. But nothing, NOTHING prepared us for this, although this subtle preparation was what made the show so amazing, which is why this season feels like total nonsense.


3. Eurus’ hyper intelligence was over the top. At the beginning, Sherlock was introduced to us as the ultimate mastermind and we all admired his genius. Then Moriarty entered with a similar, though very psychotic level of genius and we were like “ah, two masterminds battling each other, that’s cool”. Then it turned out that Mycroft is actually even smarter and quicker than Sherlock and everyone was like “well… He’s the older brother, there’s rivalry, he’s gotta feel superior in some way, that’s fine, still kinda fun” and it showed us the borders of Sherlock’s intelligence and made him appear more human, all fine and good. I also get that Eurus kind of reflected that even Mycroft is not the all-knowing, stone-faced, flawless, mature older brother and the ultimate version of smart. But continuously adding more characters to the “flawed mastermind” stack where every new one outsmarts the others feels very cheap and uninnovative. First Moriarty was said to be one of those minds that happens once every few centuries, then Mycroft supposedly straight up Fucked Him Over™ (although he actually didn’t in the end, i know), and then there’s suddenly Eurus out of nowhere and wait she’s even smarter than the rest of them?? Sorry sirs, I’m not buying this.



4. In S3, everything was hinting at Mary having some sort of connection with Moriarty (and we still don’t know how she got into Magnussen’s office that easily because I don’t think she proposed to Janine as well). When Mary’s A.G.R.A background was revealed, I thought it was kinda fucky and far-fetched; I’ve been waiting for the big Mary reveal in TFP. Instead, her conflict apparently counted as solved in T6T and she was turned into a lovable goofball who just so happens to posthumously send old DVD recordings of herself over to Baker Street to whisper sweet nothings to both John an Sherlock so that everyone forgets that she shot Sherlock with the intention to kill him, then drugged him again and overall just manipulated John an Sherlock all the time? Mary is a great, twisted character and I do believe that she’s able to feel love for both boys, but that ending was not her. They were trying to find poetic final words and they didn’t have anyone to give them to but the ex-assassin who murdered her husband’s best friend and lied and lied to her oh-so-beloved John? I don’t think so fuckers.


5. Normally, at the end of a movie (/episode) the viewer should be able to distinguish between such things as imagined/hallucinated locations, events and conversations and what happened in the ‘real world’ of that world. Now, this might have something to do with the fact that English isn’t my first language, but after TFP I’m still a bit clueless about how some scenes were connected and what was actually happening and what wasn’t. (I never had problems like that during the old episodes though, including TAB, which was also really fucky and inception-y.)


6. The Molly scene was hurtful as fuck, and not in a movie-typical, good way.
There’s a grown woman who just can’t and can’t get over her crush: Mofftiss’ level of extending this idea always appeared a bit forced to me anyway, but that is neither here nor there now. This scene was emotional abuse, heartbreaking and humiliating and most of all, it was so, so useless. Wow, Sherlock was a dick to Molly once again and this time it broke her completely. This doesn’t help us understand Sherlock’s troubled mind any further nor does it advance the plot in any way, it just crashes another character straight into a brick wall because why the fuck not. (Loo did a great job in this scene tho, probz for that.)


7. I’m still not over how fucking cheap Eurus’ little horror game was. “Let’s lock a few people in one room and make them shoot each other, nonono listen to me this has never been done before because in our show the villain and his victims are related isn’t this awesome?” Wow yeah, truly groundbreaking. What a witty, unique idea. The only good thing about this was that Sian truly was great at pulling of four different roles in a very convincing fashion, credit where credit is due.


8. You don’t say stuff like “It’s making a funny face… I think I’ll put a hole in it” and then reveal that the so-called hole was nothing but a tranquilizer, seriously, where’s the classic Mofftiss genius style in that?


9. The plot and the plot twists of this episode (and the whole season 4 for that matter) were lazy and mainstream compared to BBC Sherlock’s usual standards. I used to love this series for its many-layered stories and characters, but here we have classic Hollywood horror and classic Hollywood psycho villain well beyond any boundaries of normality. Of course I’m not opposed to this kind of stories, but it’s common, you can find stuff like that everywhere. BBC Sherlock used to have a really special, unique way of storytelling and most of it got killed for the sake of cheap ass mistery overload and mainstream horror games.


10. Personally, I can begrudgingly accept the ending that we got, aka “open for interpretation”. If you still want to ignore the gayness that is screaming you in the face, go ahead and call it bro!parentlock, I don’t care. But what I do care about is the line “It doesn’t matter who you are”. I believe that it was never meant to be offensive or hurtful, but this version of Sherlock was introduced to us as gay (or bi or pan or whatever, but at least in some way sexually interested in the same sex). If Mofftiss were too scared to actually pull through with it or simply didn’t want to, that’s fine, I understand. But then don’t just go ahead and tell us that it doesn’t matter anyway. Because it does matter. I feel like these men fail to grasp the power they have over us and therefore didn’t see how hurtful this line was, but it did hurt people. Lots of people. Many of us had actual mental breakdowns because of this line. I know it was never meant to mean that much (or it wasn’t meant to be understood differently), but if you have a general understanding of the concept of fandom (Mofftiss sure have it), then you usually understand that there are sensitive topics that can be triggering and should be expressed with caution.


11. Where’s the big Mycroft reveal? All these adressings towards his physical health. How the hell were they implying that he fucked up in dealing with his psychotic sister?


12. I still don’t get the point of Irene if they were neither letting them meet again nor cutting her out permanently. She’s been a recurring thought of Sherlock since ASIB, but in TFP it was just like “Nah it’s not her she’s married idgaf about her anymore anyway bye” Like?? Dramatic flow? is where exactly here??


13. We still don’t know how Sherlock survived the fall. Just sayin’.


14. Yeah john totally cut his metal chains that forced him onto the bottom of the well with a fucking rope and he didn’t even need help for that matter he just pulled himself out of the water by his own hair Munchhausen style I THINK THE FUCK NOT FOLKS


15. No one will ever convince me that they actually jumped out of an upstairs window to escape an explosion and got away without a single scratch. That’s just bullshit.


16. An umbrella that’s also a sword that’s also a gun that’s also not functioning? Yeah, kinda funny, but also really stupid and not at all up to the standards of the usual witty humour of BBC Sherlock.


17. “Sherlock’s in love but who with?” in combination with the “i love you” scene were used to bait us all to start another war between straight!Sherlock and gay!Sherlock supporters in order to make sure as many people as possible would turn in, but the reveal behind this line was utterly disappointing. This was a humiliating and just not cool™ move.


18. They’re not seriously trying to tell us that Eurus, while having an extreme mental and emotional breakdown, built a fake cell in the garden of her old childhood house because Drama™?


19. General conclusion: This whole story of everything being connected and leading back to Moriarty and Sherlock’s childhood just deflated like a big gay balloon full of anticipation. They’ve been talking about this story forever, but the great opportunities it offered were not only ignored, but stuffed into a fucking meat grinder and mashed up into cheap boring mainstream moviemaking.



Also, I still think everything about this season is shady as fuck and I don’t accept a word of it and from now on I’m just gonna mark it down as another victim of 2016. Thank and bye
Sherlock, Mycroft, and His Last Vow

(Contains mostly discussion of brotherly relationships but also minor suggestions of Holmescest. if you don’t approve of that sort of thing, go read notagarroter’s Christmas meta instead, which is what prompted me to finally babble about this. If you do approve of that sort of thing, I have proper tinfoil hat Holmescest meta here. But don’t take any of this too seriously. Especially since it’s now almost a year since the bloody thing aired *g*)

tl;dr

1. John and Mary  ||  Mycroft and Sherlock

2. Mycroft knew Sherlock was going after Magnussen all along

Keep reading

Sally Donovan is in the middle of her own totally legit story arc, and I'm not even kidding

Even among fans of Sally Donovan (at least as far as I’ve seen), there seems to be general acceptance of the idea that Sherlock’s writers aren’t interested in her as anything more than a mild antagonist for Sherlock.

And on the one hand, it’s really easy to see why people would believe that.

But… I don’t think it’s true. I think the writers have very definite plans for her.

Not that that necessarily means those plans will turn out to be great ones, because who knows. But I can be hopeful for the time being, can’t I?

Keep reading

A Love of the Dramatic: Sherlock as Storyteller

Let’s talk about the big reveal scene in TAB, shall we? I’ve seen several people both on tumblr and in reviews go after the “cult” scene in the special as being distinctly anti-feminist. People have countered this argument with the fact that, technically, the entire scene is being told by Sherlock– literally everyone there represents an aspect of Sherlock, so it really isn’t about women at all. I could make that argument pretty easily (seriously, all the references to dying and martyrdom just back up what I said in my Sherlock drug addiction meta), but I’d like to come at it from a different angle. 

As we all know, the Sherlock Holmes stories are presented through the eyes of John Watson (save a few) and each interpretation has kept this central theme. John Watson is our storyteller, heaping praise upon Holmes and letting us know at every turn the truly dramatic ways in which Holmes solves cases. Sherlock is no different in that regard and has even played with this on previous occasions. Many people, for example, commented on how different s3 felt from s1 and 2 and this was in large part due to the shift in POV. No longer were we seeing Sherlock through the eyes of John. Instead, we were seeing John through the eyes of Sherlock. The special takes this several steps further, first by revealing to us that this is Sherlock through the eyes of himself, but also by quite literally having Sherlock unravel the tale as he, in turn, unravels. It’s a common theme in mysteries to have the big reveal narrated by the detective and while the special is no different in that regard, I believe it is doing something else as well. While the narrative begins with John’s voice over, Sherlock’s voice is the dominate one and it is he that tells the tale and falls victim to the romantic notions of narrative that he ridicules John for time and again.  

Keep reading

Andrew Scott interview in today’s Times

Holmes’s nemesis Andrew Scott is now in an Irish comedy, as well as filming the latest Ken Loach and a new Frankenstein.

Fame, fame, fatal fame, to paraphrase a once-celebrated pop icon, it can really mess with your mind. And if your name happens to be award-winning 37-year-old theatre actor and overnight Sherlocksensation Andrew Scott, it can certainly shake up your daily routine, your professional schedule, and everything you know about yourself and your life. The Irish-born and London-based Scott is experiencing something close to a prolonged and hugely disorienting post-Sherlockian famegasm, where his celebrated and Bafta-winning turn as evil nemesis Jim Moriarty has thrown everything he knows into the air. Fans hound him. Studios want him. His private life is up for grabs. He’s made five films in the past year alone (include a new Ken Loach, a Tom Hardy movie and a reinvention of Frankenstein). While his next project, a play called Birdland, from Simon Stephens (who adapted The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-time for the National Theatre), is about a megastar who succumbs to the deleterious effects of, yep, fame.

“I don’t want to overstate it,” he begins, cautiously, from a quiet concourse corner of the National Theatre (where he’s rehearsingBirdland, although it will play, eventually, in the Royal Court). “But my life is very different on a daily basis now.” He has arrived half-hidden behind a scarf and giant Ray-Bans, and throughout the interview is unfailingly polite, alternating between whip-smart self-deprecation and thoughtful, disquieted angst. “And although opportunities have come up in big, big, commercial projects, it’s not necessarily where I want to go, because I don’t want to compound the problem of being well-known. Why would I exacerbate that? I find it all a little bit stressful.” In what way? “Well, I don’t want people to become the enemy, but sometimes they’re just rude. I think it’s rude to go up and (lifts his phone off the table and sticks it into my face) and take a photograph of someone right in their face. Or when you’re on the Tube and someone takes out their phone and just starts recording you? It’s rude. And I always want to say, ‘If you just ask me I’ll do it, no problem!’ Because it’s nothing to do with being an actor, it’s just about what it means to be a human being.”

On top of which, Scott is an openly gay actor, but not open enough to enjoy chatting about his sexuality whenever he has a gig to plug. “There’s something a little bit oppressive about the idea that you have to speak about it every time you speak publicly,” he says, before noting that his line on the subject is that, “Being gay is not a virtue or a character flaw, just a fact. I’m absolutely comfortable with it, and I don’t want to be secretive, just private.”

Of course, all this clamouring attention is understandable when you see Scott in action. He is possessed of the most idiosyncratic vocal cadence since early-era Christopher Walken, and his glassy-eyed delivery of Moriarty’s dialogue utterly defined the climactic, and the best, moments of two Sherlock seasons (“If you don’t stop prying,” begins his Moriarty, in normal voice, before suddenly shifting down to an insanely eerie whisper, “I will burn you!”). Of his Sherlockexperience he muses, “I knew it was a good script, and that it wasn’t a cynical exercise by any stretch of the imagination. But there was no way I could’ve predicted how big it would become.” He adds too, lest we get the wrong idea, that most Sherlock fans are charming, and that they frequently refer to him as “Mr Sex” (a Season Two in-joke). “Which,” he deadpans, “is better than being called Mr F***wit!”

The trademark delivery is there too in the best moments of his latest project, a wedding-themed Hangover-style comedy of male bonding and mishaps set in the Irish wilderness and called The Stag. Here, as the Best Man hiding a guilty secret (he’s in love with the bride), he grounds the movie at every turn in aching, raging emotion, from an unexpectedly moving fireside rendition of the lost lovers’ ballad On Raglan Road to a desperate confession of inner torment that begins with (normal voice) “I was a mess, I was a pitiful mess” before diving into the depths of contorted agony with (nutty voice) “And my heart! My heart!” It’s real acting, in other words, and it protects the material against claims of whimsy, and elevates the movie to a place of both comedy and ideas (male identity, Irish provincialism, Recession-era realities) rather than just the former. Scott explains that he chose The Stag as a direct reaction to, yep, Sherlock. “I wanted to work on something a little closer to myself, a little more delicate, a proper human being. Sherlock has an incredibly wide reach, so I just wanted to have something out there that might restore the balance.”

It helps to better understand Scott, and his seeming aversion to the limelight, if you recognise that before Sherlock came calling he was already a successful stage actor, with multiple Olivier awards (including one for the Royal Court’s controversial 2004 kidnap drama A Girl in a Car With a Man) and annual nominations (including one for his 2006 Broadway debut, opposite Julianne Moore in the Sam Mendes-directed The Vertical Hour) over a 15-year career. “I was working all the time, I never had to borrow money, and I was happy with it,” he says. “The most successful actors are, to my mind, not the most famous or the richest. Being successful doesn’t mean being recognisable.”

His career had been forged in childhood, as a shy boy who found liberation only at weekend drama classes in suburban Dublin, where he grew up, with his two sisters (his younger sister, Hannah, is also an actress) and his parents, a mother who was an art teacher, a father who was an employment agency manager – both keen theatregoers. After a startling debut, aged 19, in the Irish father-son drama Korea, his screen work became fitful at best, first starring as Soldier on the Beach in Saving Private Ryan (“That consisted of Tom Hanks rolling over me, and me going, ‘Weeuuuughhhh!’”), and then picking up a supporting role in the TV epic Band of Brothers. The latter experience was something of a low point, which he remembers as a battle of egos and male primadonnas. “Damian Lewis was pleasant to me, and a lot of my scenes were with him,” he recalls. “But elsewhere it was just this atmosphere of everyone thinking that they were going to be massive movie stars and that, somehow, by not having trailers they were paying homage to the real soldiers of World War Two. All that posturing and strutting about wasn’t for me.” Notable roles followed: in the mini series John Adams, opposite Paul Giamatti; and as Paul McCartney in Lennon Naked (he’s devilishly good at accents too). Sherlock, though, was the game changer.

Scott lives in South London today. There are rumours of a long-term partner (he’d rather not comment). I wonder where does “coming out” now place him in the infamous stew of movie industry hypocrisy, where straight actors win awards for playing gay men (see this year’s Best Supporting Actor Oscar winner, Jared Leto) while gay actors find it hard, almost impossible, to find roles that allow them to play straight men (see, ahem, Zachary Quinto as Spock, but, well, does Spock even qualify as a man?). “Here’s what I think on that subject,” he says, with the tone of someone who’s thought about that subject a lot. “We don’t go to the cinema and think that Sandra Bullock and George Clooney are actually in space. Or that I’m arch enemies with Sherlock Holmes. The fun of film is in the suspension of disbelief. So it’s fun for a straight actor to play a gay guy, or a gay actor to play a straight guy. The only question then is about the proficiency of the actor playing the role. That is, unless you’re dealing with people who have a preconceived prejudice about those issues, and I’m not interested in trying to appease that audience.”

In the meantime, as well as Birdland, the new movie roles are coming in thick and fast — as a priest in Ken Loach’s period dramaJimmy’s Hall, and as a hapless builder haranguing Tom Hardy inLocke. And there’s a reunion of sorts with his Sherlock director Paul McGuigan, in a wild-sounding Frankenstein revamp, with James McAvoy as the mad scientist, Daniel Radcliffe as his faithful assistant Igor, and Scott himself starring as Frankenstein’s sparring partner, a “man of God” called Roderick Turpin. Of this busy professional slate he says, “My work is very much a part of who I am, and it feels very natural to me to be doing different genres, different roles, different accents. But my ultimate goal is to be happy.” And is he near that goal? “Yes, I am,” he says, instinctually, honestly, before suddenly catching himself and, wary of falling into the post-Sherlock fame trap adds, “But, really, that’s not for anyone else to worry about.”
The Stag is on general release

Interview with Kevin Maher

6

He’s… Mercurial. Shear talent. A genius. One of the leading actors in the world. An incredibly formidable presence. A Porsche 911.

I think its time to repost and update one of my most reblogged posts of all times. Because I see all this hate for Benedict on Tumblr these days, mostly from people who havent even seen him in anything, and I want to inform them and remind his tumblr fans why we are fans.

He’s one of the most admired actors in the world, first and foremost among his peers and collegues. I know about two guys who went to acting school because of him,  because of the video of him doing motion capture for Smaug. Do yourself a favour and watch that Video, see what a true genius he is and why he gets big roles: https://youtu.be/FHuXSZv6Tqs.

He’s an inspration for artists all over the globe and he deserves more than getting irrational hate from People who know nothing about him.

So, here my post:

Great people about Cumberbatch.

“As well as Olivier, acting giants Peter O’Toole and Richard Burton drew audiences by their sheer strength of character. Today Benedict Cumberbatch is doing the same.”
Joanna Read, Principal of LAMDA acting school

“Hands down, I believe that he’s the most versatile, surprising and charismatic actors of our time.”
Christina Bianco, actress

“Benedict transforms, he doesn’t act. He becomes Turing.”
Morten Tyldum, director

“There’s a dignity about him, a correctness.”
Steve McQueen, director

“After [Benedict] left, [executive producer] Stephen Broussard and I looked at each other and said, ‘I think Doctor Strange was just here. (Strange) gets into a horrible car accident and his hands, the tools by which he can do amazing surgeries, are mangled and destroyed. That starts his downward path, and that’s why Benedict is such a great choice - you can go to the highest heights and lowest lows with him and he won’t lose you.”
Kevin Feige, Marvel director

“Even as a 13-year old, he was obviously an outstanding actor - a combination of intuition and intellect. It’s probably once in a lifetime that you find a boy actor as magnificent as this. I don’t think I had to speak or work with him in any way when I was directing him. I felt like I was working with a fellow professional rather than a schoolboy.”
Mr. Tyrell, Cumberbatch’s acting teacher in Harrow

“Benedict Cumberbatch… is amazing. Amazing. Beautiful man, beautiful heart, soul… and how giving he is as an actor…”
Johnny Depp, actor

"You want an actor who can bring a lot of intelligence, a lot of character to it. It’s important with the dragon that he’s smarter than Bilbo.You wanted a sense that Bilbo was up against a very formidable foe. So literally, we wanted somebody scary. He’s like the Hannibal Lecter of the dragon world. And Benedict has just got such a great voice and he’s got such a great, sharp mind that we was able to contribute a huge amount to the role.”
Peter Jackson, director

Benedict is witty, mercurial… thoughtful and expert. He’s very intelligent but he doesn’t let it show by commenting on the character he is playing.”
Richard Eyre, theater director

“He has a sensibility and an oddness to him… and a directness and a fantastic sense of humor (…) So I respect him on a pretty fundamental level (…) He’s an actor who has the ability to play in the outer field of basic acting work (…) He is a very generous, very sensitive, very thoughtful, focused, disciplined actor and, you know, when you work with somebody like that it’s just like playing… like Ronnie Scotts with B.B. King… it’s just a question of when or if… you know when someone’s got it and he’s got it.”
Tom Hardy, actor

“He’s a fabulous actor and happens to have the zeitgeist. Sherlock has lifted him into a global star but he manages to combine stardom with utter brilliance which is really rare.”
Hay Festival director Peter Florence

“Cumberbatch is a remarkable actor. He can quietly project the inner turmoil that more animated actors can only mimic.”
Matthew Gilbert, TV critic

“Benedict Cumberbatch is shear talent. I mean he’s such a fantastically talented actor. He has a marvelous look of course, he has cheekbones you could shave Parmesan of and he’s just a magnificently talented actor. I’ve seen him do so many different things, with such style and he’s also an incredibly nice man and he deserves the enormous acclaim he receives around the world.”
Stephen Fry, actor

“He is phenomenal. The amount of work that goes into his roles, he has a great work ethic and a genius mind, he is so inspiring. He really raised the bar for me and he had this integrity and genuineness. I feel really blessed to have worked with him.”
Adelaide Clemens, actress

“Everytime Benedict Cumberbatch opens his mouth it is positively electric… At the time I was getting really into Sherlock series one and I was just totally hypnotized by Benedict and I said to JJ ‘You gotta watch this guy, and one thing let to another and… Thank God! …. All credit goes to Benedict but I was smart enough to realize he is a genius.”
Damon Lindelof, screenwriter

"I didn’t really know him as a stage actor. I knew what a fine screen actor he is. But there’s a physicality involved in the theatre. It’s not just about mannerisms or impersonation, which screen often is: it’s about sustaining a narrative with mind and body. When I saw him for Frankenstein, that was the only thing I wanted to know. Did he have that physical capacity? And of course he does. We met and I asked him to do a few things and he was extraordinary in the room. He’s as fit as a boxer, which you have to be for the stage. You have to have an internal fitness that allows you to carry the story so it never sags. He had this combination of the cerebral and the physical which you can see when you look back at his screen work – in Hawking, it’s there. Frankenstein was a great one for using it. That’s why he’s now what he is: one of the leading actors in the world.”
Danny Boyle, director

“He’s a genius. There are certain actors who have the ability to take a line of dialogue and add a ring to it that you didn’t even know you put into the dialogue, into the line. And he’s one of those really brilliant actors. Just listening to him talk…you could enjoy him reading the phone book.(…) And he’s an incredibly formidable presence. He’s amazing.”
Alex Kurtzman, screenwriter

“We found Benedict Cumberbatch fairly early. We needed a very good actor, someone young enough to be believable as an aristocratic, an almost slightly dislikeable character who is an adolescent in terms of his views of the world, his upbringing. But we also needed someone who could hold the screen for four and half hours, in every scene. We needed someone with experience who was not only a very good actor, but also with terrific comic timing. Benedict was the ideal answer to that.”
David Attwood, director (To the ends of the earth)

“Everyone just looked at it and went “Oh. All right.” Meryl looked at me and gave me a big smile, which is Meryl’s way of saying “Well done”. It was not the best quality you’ve ever seen. And his face was very close. But he was wonderful. At first I didn’t realize that he was British because his southern Oklahoma accent was very good. There’s nothing guarded about him. It can be a little daunting because you have the clear impression at all times that he might be more intelligent than you are.”
John Wells, director, about Cumberbatch’s iPhone auditioning for August: Osage County

“The difference between stars and just great actors is that stars can make parts into them, rather than themselves into parts; they make those people them. They never quite play it like you expect them to, so it becomes very much Benedict’s Sherlock. Look at how Sean Connery owned James Bond.”
Steven Moffat, producer and writer

“He’s a stick shift; he’s changing up and changing down. He’s a Porsche 911.” Gary Oldman, actor

“I would like to officialy declare my love for Benedict Cumberbatch. Yes, that’s right. I’m in love with him.”
Paul Feig, director

“He’s an immersive actor; he’s physical. You have to keep feeding him, trying to keep him stimulated. The engine has to be stoked all the time. The joke is that Hollywood thinks it’s investigating him right now to see what he’s made of. The truth is: He’s investigating them.”
Danny Boyle, director

“Watching him physically train to play James (He dieted, ran the cliffs and swam in the cold sea), and also delve into the meaning of every line in rehearsals, and then plot the effect of his illness on his body and mind as it would be in each scene (shot in the wrong order), while all the while being a joy to be around was impressive to witness. To see it as one performance in the final cut was remarkable. - He is rare even amongst the acting breed. If the character description says handsome: he is. If it says Nasty: he is. Older: he is… Younger: he is. For this reason I just can’t wait to see what he will become.”
Vaughan Sivell, producer and screen writer („Third Star“)

“Being on the set with him… I think everyone was bringing their absolute A-game. I think, frankly, in a way, [his] presence sort of elevated everything. Time and again, every scene, Benedict brought a surprising, unexpected, grounded, real and often terrifying aspect to the role. So we are incredibly grateful, all of us.”
JJ Abrams, director

“Benedict Cumberbatch is one of my very favorite — excuse me, favourite — actors today, and he brought his brilliant mixture of confidence and strength to Khan in a way that, with all due respect, Montalban never did. Never once does Cumberbatch make the obvious choice, his performance is always subtle, always controlled, and when he finally goes full-Khan, scary as hell.”
Will Wheaton, actor

“I think he’ll be one of the guys who lasts, that’s my take. It’s what George [Clooney] said to me ten years ago: If you can pull off ten years in this business, then you’ve done something, and we both kind of agreed that that was kind of the benchmark. And I think [Cumberbatch] is of the new crop.”
Matt Damon, actor

“Benedict Cumberbatch is truly one of the greatest actors I’ve ever seen. And my favorite thing about him in this movie is that instead of his bad guy being adorned and wearing some crazy mask and costume and hair… he is just a simple man standing in a black shirt and black pants, just a common man… and his performance is so powerful in it’s simplicity… and that to me was an incredibly exciting thing to see: how little he needed to be that powerful.”
JJ Abrams, director

“When he was at school, parents came to see him in plays their own children weren’t in - THAT is how good he is.”
Tatler magazine

“Yes, Benedict has darkness. He has a light, brilliance, wit, sophistication, an imposing presence. He’s threatening; he’s physical. He’s also sympathetic. He does these things and makes it all look so damn easy. And the other actors … it was so funny. Every time we were doing a scene with Benedict, they were standing a little bit taller. He has a presence that is ridiculous and that voice, oh my God. There wasn’t a day working with Benedict that I didn’t think, this is insane. He elevated that moment. He made that thing that I thought was going to be really hard, authentic. He’s not like his character in any way, physically or emotionally, but he transformed himself physically. He was suddenly this wildly intimidating big guy. And he’s not. When you talk to him, he’s sort of slight. But in the movie, I spent a year editing him (Benedict’s footage). So it was like I got to see him every day. I got so used to him as that character. So when I saw him again recently, I thought, God, he’s so small, compared to how he is in the movie—he’s so epic. He is an utter chameleon who I think can do anything. He’s one of the best actors I’ve ever seen, let alone worked with. He was able to bring all of these incredible nuances and attitude to a role that in lesser hands would not have worked remotely that well.”
JJ Abrams, director

Sherlock and the Seven-Percent Solution

Quite a few people around here have been discussing the opening of His Last Vow, where John finds Sherlock strung out on drugs. Specifically, they’re asking whether this counts as a relapse and whether he was driven to it out of desperation or loneliness or rejection by John, or whether it was part of a strategy for a case. I’d like to propose a third option. It’s not a relapse in my opinion; the behavior pattern throughout the episode doesn’t seem to match someone dealing with addiction. But it’s also not the kind of trick a mentally healthy Sherlock would pull. Rather, it’s a symptom of the rather bad case of combat stress Sherlock picked up rooting out Team Moriarty.

Let’s start with Theory A, the idea that this really is a relapse. I’ve seen this a lot in fanfic and it definitely makes for good drama. Sherlock’s pretty well-established as a drug addict but one in recovery, and John is equally well-established as the person who “keeps him right” in that regard. John’s the one that cancels his date when Irene seemingly dies, after all, who searches his flat and even hounds him about giving up cigarettes. The end of The Sign of Three is as big a danger night as we’ve ever seen, and by its very nature its one John can’t help him through.

There’s also a kind of canonical precedent in the Doyle stories. Take this bit from the tail end of The Sign of the Four (so minor spoilers for that book):

Keep reading