who has not watched this show

I’m actually about to cry. If there is one thing Teen Wolf will never fail at is showing us just how much these characters have grown together? The amount of love and devotion they each have? How they all so desperately want to risk their lives to save one person. The entire town is being erased and they still want to save this one goofy boy whom they all love and adore. How Lydia’s love for him breaks the barrier of a supernatural rift. How Scott who has no banshee-like powers can still remember his best friend, his brother. How none of them fully remember him yet, but Malia still knows he’s her anchor. How the Sheriff was able to conjure up his son’s old room in his mind

The McCall Pack will forever be the best ragtag misfits turned-to-friends group there ever was. <3

anonymous asked:

what's with all this like critical analysis of tfp? it's a TV show. it's for entertainment. no one's expecting it to be deep or thought-provoking lmao

I’ve been seeing a lot of this same line of thought in the past two days: “it’s just a show,” “if you didn’t like it then forget about it and move on,” “it was never that great anyway,” and even “I loved it and I don’t understand why everyone has to analyze it to death!”

Writers who get paid to write and have an audience on the scale of BBC Sherlock must be held accountable for their work, even when it’s just for fun. Bad writing should not be excused because it’s fun to watch. If the writing gets ignored and the work is celebrated anyway, media creators decide that audiences don’t care about good stories and will create content that is simply entertaining. Good storytelling - hell, coherent storytelling should never be overrated. Do you know what happens when entertainment gets priority over story? You get The Fast and the Furious seven times. You get Transformers. Adam Sandler movies. That’s what. Do you want to live in a world where every show and film is an Adam Sandler movie? I sure as hell don’t. We must hold content creators responsible for bad content. If we don’t, then the bad content becomes our fault.

Moreover, Sherlock is touted, promoted, and occasionally awarded as an intellectual show. Sherlock Holmes is a genius detective who tells us outright in the dialogue that he is only interested in truly impossible cases. It’s about unraveling the arcane, and therefore, it’s about the payoff in solving it. Sherlock is a little unique to other Holmes adaptations in that it is also a character exploration - it dives not only into criminal mystery, but into the mystery of the detective himself. (As well as the people around him.) My point being: if you’re going to talk the talk, you have to walk the walk. Don’t tell us the show is clever and nuanced if you’re not going to write a clever and nuanced plot. That’s the primary reason I’m so incensed by The Final Problem. If you claim your show is clever and carefully planned and then you deliver a series finale that has forty plot holes and counting, you deserve to be called on it.

Also, my commentary is subjective. I’m a writer. It pisses me off to no end when people get lazy and sloppy with their plotting. One of the pillars of my being is good storytelling - I LIVE for good storytelling, and I know that’s the reason I’m alive, is to participate and engage in good storytelling. Writers who don’t honor their craft infuriate me. If you don’t want to write a good story, what the fuck are you writing for? Get your shallow cashgrab bullshit away from me.

Also, regarding this, the show is notoriously open-ended, ambiguous and infuriatingly bad at giving a straight answer because it WANTS to foster many levels of reading, and in fact it’s that crazy cocktail of ambiguity and many levels that has let it be so successful and have such a wide ranging type of audience, from the people who just love the guns and car and stuff, to the people who are there for dewey-eyed bromance or Dean being in love with his angel or because there’s no love story in it at all, to those who just watch it for the plot & reblog the cool/funny gifsets, and those who turn an academic eye on it and tear it to shreds. 

Pretty much everyone with an opinion about the show is “right” for a given degree of being able to place a value of “correctness” on a completely nebulous, pointless concept that intentionally doesn’t have a compass bearing towards correct readings, except if you want to state “no shit sherlock” facts about canon :P

I’m watching a documentary on Star Wars right now and if there’s one thing I’ve learned from it, it is that, George Lucas has a lot of friends. 

Notably, supportive and influential friends who either had been in show business for a while or were out to make name for themselves at the same time. He had a tight network of professional social contacts that in turn had their own network of social contacts. He had scores of people not only willing to help him, but who would then introduce him to even more people who would go on to help him get his dream film made. 

This is not to diminish Lucas’s own hard work, multiple set backs, and/or talent. But it can not be stressed enough that Lucas was only able to create Star Wars with resources that most people just don’t have access to.    

In today’s society we love to romanticize the “the pull you’re self up by your own bootstraps” philosophy. The “self made man” who over comes all odds and achieves success. But the harsh truth simply is, that is not reality.   

People achieve “success”, at least financial success, through a combination of both hard work and luck/fate. So while we shouldn’t ignore the efforts of those who have achieved fame and fortune. Neither should we shame and demean those who are simply less fortunate. 

The poor and working class are not poor by choice. They are not lazy. They simply lack resources. To continue to deny them basic needs and human dignity, all because of a myth makes you no better than the Sith.     

No one who achieves success does so without acknowledging the help of others. The wise and confident acknowledge this help with gratitude. 

Alfred North Whitehead

anonymous asked:

If the whole of TFP is Sherlock's dream, John and Mycroft are meant to represent emotion and logic, why does Mycroft throw up and refuse to shoot the man?

Exactly! As well as this, Mycroft has watched his brother be beaten with a pole, looked at murder cases (like when he gave Sherlock the case about the guy who got his head smashed open for a memory stick and when he talked about the case where someone got hit in the head with a boomerang in asip) and watched his little brother shoot someone point blank in the face. I’m sure there are many other bits of evidence to show that Mycroft would not suddenly be acting like he did.

I mean I guess if TFP was a dream, it could show the logic side is failing but idk… I don’t think it was a dream.
An Outrageously Long-Winded Political Rant

Just me, bored at work and getting crap off my chest ahead of the End of the World, coming Friday to a country near you. “The Myth of Individual Exceptionalism”
January 18, 2017

There’s an episode of the TV show “The Office“ in which a main office guy calls a satellite office guy to tell him he’s been promoted to a management job. I’m fuzzy on the details of character names and backstories; I’ve only ever caught a few moments of the show while my teenage daughter binge-watches it on Netflix. Anyway, the front office guys says to the satellite office guy, “It’ll be nice to have another M.B.A. around.“

The first few times I happened to catch that exchange, it made me chuckle. The writers managed to tap into something that everybody who has ever worked in a low-level, non-management office position knows: Upper management thinks that just because someone has those three little letters behind their name – M.B.A. – that person is automatically better suited to a high level position in the company than someone who has actual experience within the company, or than someone who knows how to perform the company’s core function — in this case, selling paper.

It used to make me chuckle. It doesn’t anymore.

Another anecdote, this one from my childhood. My Dad was a Korean War vet who wanted to go to engineering school when he got back from overseas, but couldn’t afford it. He rose through the ranks of his company as an apprentice, learning the craft of tool and die making at the elbow of experienced designers. He eventually earned the designation of Master Mechanic and was fairly high up in his company. When his boss, who had also risen through the ranks from apprentice to Master, retired, there was an unexpected change in corporate policy. The managerial position Dad was ready to assume suddenly required a degree he didn’t have and, at age 55, was unlikely to earn. Someone else – someone younger, with that all-important engineering degree but no experience in the field – was brought in for the management position my Dad had been promised for years. My Dad reviewed his options, hedged his bets, and took early retirement. Within a year, he was freelancing his job back to the company because no one there knew how to do what he did.

Final anecdote. Years ago there was a massive corporate shakeup at a company where I used to work in a low-level marketing position. The Board wiped out most of the executives in one massive cut, the company was sold, and within a few months we had our third CEO in six years. This new CEO was, you guessed it, young and dynamic. He’d had great success as a high-level exec at a company that specialized in credit card processing.

My field, and the company I worked for then, had absolutely nothing to do with credit card processing. But because this guy came from the credit card industry, our top corporate priority was suddenly not what was in our mission statement. Nope. Our number one priority was to get consumers to pay us using their credit cards so that we could enroll them into an auto-renewal program … which we on the ground level knew our customers wouldn’t like. Not one bit.

That CEO didn’t last very long.

These three anecdotes highlight what I’ve come to call The Myth of Individual Exceptionalism. This is the idea that someone who has had great success in one field must have achieved that success not by knowing that field exceedingly well, or by being part of a team that worked together to propel a company to success, or even by being related to someone on the Board. No, a truly exceptional individual achieves success simply because he or she is exceptional. And that exceptionalism translates to everything that person touches. Obviously.

Got an M.B.A.? You must be great at everything. You could take that M.B.A. and run a department at a company in any field. Never mind that you started in, let’s say, publishing, and now you’re managing a construction crew. Your M.B.A. makes you fit to manage anyone, anywhere, at any time. You are better than the ground-level guy with decades of experience because you have that advanced degree.

Likewise, my Dad’s decades of experience as a tool and die maker clearly couldn’t hold a candle to his replacement’s degree in engineering. “But it means that guy could learn!” I hear you thinking. And yes, there may be some truth to that. The problem was that the company didn’t have time to wait for the degree holder to learn his job, which is why the rest of the designers, who knew what the problem was, convinced the young guy to give my Dad a freelance contract. (And I owe them my thanks. He nearly doubled his income and was able to put me through college entirely on those freelance contracts.)

Finally, the CEO of a credit card company can absolutely run a book publishing business. Of course! He got to be CEO by being exceptional, not by knowing anything about credit cards. It’s obvious! He is an Exceptional Individual, and so he can do anything!

I find this ridiculously silly. Look. Bo Jackson notwithstanding, we generally do not assume that someone who can play one professional sport at a high level can play all professional sports at a high level. Given his size, I’m sure Michael Phelps is a beast on a basketball court. But could he outscore Steph Curry? I doubt it. Serena Williams is a hell of a tennis player, but could she replace Abby Wambach on the US Women’s National Soccer team? Unlikely.

So why do we think the CEO of Company X is fit in any way, shape, or form to be the CEO of Company Y, when the two companies’ core functions have nothing to do with each other whatsoever? Why do we think a person who is exceptional in one field will have the same success in a different field altogether? And who the hell thought letting Anne Hathaway and James Franco host the Oscars was a perfectly sane idea?

Which brings me to the rise of Donald Trump.

During the long and nightmarish campaign, I was an outlier among my friends. I was convinced Trump was going to win the election, and while there were a lot of factors that made me think that – not least of which was the notion that people are kind of dumb and kind of racist and just flat-out detest Hillary Clinton – there was one thing that kept standing out to me. I kept hearing otherwise intelligent, thoughtful people saying things like, “We need someone who will run the country like a business.“

Every time I heard that, it made my hackles rise. Because I knew they didn’t mean, “We need someone who will run the country like the independent auto shop down the block, where my guy Keith schedules the work, delegates the jobs, trains new mechanics, checks each finished project himself, and still manages to balance the books every year and keep the shop open even though there’s a new Tires Plus down the street.” No, I was pretty sure what they meant was, “We need an Exceptional Individual who will run the country like a giant corporation that throws its weight around the marketplace and makes other companies bend to its will.“

Right? Isn’t that what you heard? Didn’t you hear that voters wanted someone who would make deals without messing about with all that sticky red tape of diplomacy and habeus corpus and international law and such? Because that’s what I heard.

What I heard was that people honestly thought that Donald Trump’s (questionable) business success would translate to politics.

That notion shows an incredible lack of understanding of both business and politics.

But because he’s an Exceptional Individual (i.e., a fabulously wealthy and therefore, at least in the American worldview, successful person), he’ll be exceptional at everything.

I’m sorry, but that’s insane.

But it doesn’t stop there.

Take a look at his Cabinet picks. We have some Exceptional Individuals who are in no way, shape, or form qualified for the positions he’s appointed them to. Ben Carson is an exceptional neurosurgeon. Why in the name of all the gods would anyone think that makes him qualified to run the Department of Housing and Urban Development? His exceptionalism in his field does not translate to his new position.

Betsy DeVos? Fabulously wealthy, and in this country, a fabulously wealthy person is automatically an Exceptional Individual, right? Capable of anything because of innate exceptionalism? But did you hear her non-answers in her confirmation hearing? Not only did this woman never serve as an educator or school administrator, I’m not sure she ever set foot in a classroom, not even as a student. She is incredibly ignorant.

Rick Perry? Rick Perry? We’re going to make this bumbling fool the head of the Department of Energy – a position that requires a science background – because he is the ex-Governor of a state that has a lot of oil? I’m not sure Donald Trump has any idea what the DOE actually does. And I’m certain Rick Perry doesn’t! But, hey! Rick is an Exceptional Individual. He’s better than all of us. He has to be. He’s an ex-Governor with great hair! His exceptionalism alone makes him fit for the position.

I could go on … and on … and on … but I won’t. I’m as worried about Trump’s swamp full of sycophants and bootlickers as much as the rest of the country, not to mention his VP, the dead-eyed dominionist Mike Pence, and his creepy sons, plastic daughter, and entirely-too-gleeful son-in-law. (And don’t even get me started on the racism, misogyny, xenophobia, and ableism. Oh, and the fact that he is almost certainly financially beholden to the Russian government.) But I’m also worried about American voters and the way they’ve bought into this Myth of Individual Exceptionalism. Because it just isn’t true, not in any meaningful way. Our collective belief in this uniquely American myth has given way to the rise of larcenous megachurch pastors and rapacious corporate CEO’s, priests who molest kids, college athletes who rape women (and the police officers and judges who exonerate them), and big-box corporations that destroy local competition and offshore jobs in the name of the bottom line. We Americans have an unfortunate tendency to put individuals and organizations on lofty pedestals, tell them they can do anything because they are exceptional, and cheer wildly when they succeed. We’re baffled when they fail because they have upended the story we told ourselves, that Exceptional Individuals will always succeed because they are inherently better than the rest of us. And when they do something truly heinous – when an NFL player beats his girlfriend, when a college athlete rapes his unconscious victim, when a corporate CEO leaves a company in shambles and walks away with an eight-figure bonus – we can’t help but rationalize their behavior or just look the other way because those things conflict with our belief that wildly successful individuals cannot be immoral. Because if they were immoral, they wouldn’t be successful.

Folks, Donald Trump is not an Exceptional Individual. He is a mean-spirited, petty, thin-skinned, ignorant, immature man-child. He’s a mediocre businessman who has managed to parlay his inherited wealth into the Trump Brand that gets his name all over everything. In this country where appearance is everything and depth is distrusted, he has achieved the biggest success there is: Omnipresence. He is the individual equivalent of Starbucks, Inc. He is on every TV and website. He has dominated our national discourse for 18 solid months. He is Everywhere You Want to Be even more than MasterCard. He has achieved the highest expression of Individual Exceptionalism there is in America.

That doesn’t mean he’s going to be a good president.

In fact, it probably means he will be one of the worst presidents in American history. He believes so fervently in this myth that he’s appointed people because of who they are, because of their perceived exceptionalism, rather than what they know how to do. To someone whose entire worldview is built on the idea that some individuals are better than others – look up Trump’s quote about “good genes“ and prepare to be appalled – a man who is already a successful neurosurgeon will be able to head up HUD in his sleep. A woman who is worth a personal fortune – a palpable symbol of exceptionalism – is certainly qualified to be Education Secretary. The fact that she destroyed public education in the state of Michigan is surely an aberration.

What’s the point of all this? Well, mostly I wanted to get it off my chest. But I also wanted to ask something of my fellow Americans. I would respectfully request that you look to the individuals that you most admire and ask yourself what they have really done to earn your admiration … and what would it take for them to lose it.

Donald Trump, for all his ignorance and arrogance, understands the American Myth of Individual Exceptionalism. He knows that it would take a lot for an American to denounce someone he or she had put on a pedestal. In fact, he’s counting on it.

In January of 2016, almost one year to the day ahead of the inauguration of our nation’s 45th president, he articulated it in one of his rare full sentences: “I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters.”

In less than 48 hours, this man will be the most powerful person in the world.

If that doesn’t terrify you, you’re not paying attention.

cptainflint  asked:

black sails! (for the fandom ask thing, if you're still doing it)

Thanks for the request! :D

the character i least understand This is tricky as the characterisation are plot is so good in this show, that you pretty much understand why everyone is doing what they’re doing. However I will say Eleanor Guthrie, simply because I’m not sure where she stands in this war, obviously she wants to make Nassau legitimate and sides with Rogers but I dont think her alliance with the pirates was entirely based on her making Nassau that. I think Eleanor doesn’t really know what she wants which was really reflected in her arc in S2.

interactions i enjoyed the most John Silver and James Flint, I mean really there’s codependent partnership that has gone from begrudging to a necessity for them has really been a pleasure to watch. 2x1 will always be one of my favourite episodes.  

the character who scares me the most I dont think anyone scares me on this show, simply again because I understand why they’re the way they are. I think Flint in S1 definitely scared me. I think they all terrify me one time or another. They all have moments when their inner demons come out and you see exactly why they become the people they are. 

the character who is mostly like me Billy Bones

hottest looks character listen here i think you all know im a slut for John Silver but I can’t ignore the goddess that is Max okay? So Max!

one thing i dislike about my fave character WHY YOU ALWAYS LYING? Directed to John ofc!

one thing i like about my hated character OKAY CAN WE ALL AGREE THAT S1 DUFRESNE WAS A GODDAMN PUPPY AND SWEET HEART UP TO about episode 6??????? He was a precious bespectacled book worm who didn’t deserve the pirate life. 

a quote or scene that haunts me there are honestly too fucking many jfc. Probably when Flint goes to Miranda way back in s1 where is says “And they call ME  a monster?!” Like, that shit haunts me, because Flint adopts that monster role when clearly he was faced so unjustly and I SWEAR TO GOD FLINT NEEDS SOME PEACE 

a death that left me indifferent Hornigold…meh

a character i wish died but didn’t This is tough, theres plenty I wish hadn’t died. Also everyone I wanted dead has died so I dunno. I honestly don’t want anyone to die at the moment in the show. They’re all too interesting.

my ship that never sailed Well, I can honestly say we didn’t really see much James x Thomas in s2 and we all will agree that the ship is the most loved but least explored and portrayed relationship we’ve seen on the show even though ITS POSSIBLY THE MOST CRUCIAL POINT THAT STARTED ALL OF THIS GOD AWFUL MESS. 

Anyone who watches TWD:

I recently reposted a gifset and was immediately blocked because of my view point.

Let me be abundantly clear: I AM NOT CRITICISING YOUR SHIP!

In reblobbing that post, I made comment about my THOUGHTS and OPINIONS on a ship that I know will never be cannon. I am not bashing anyone else’s opinion. Everyone has different thoughts about the same thing so let me and everyone else who thinks differently from you be who we want and think what we want. Caryl is obviously a thing for many people (the actors and writers of the show as well) but that doesn’t mean that Bethyl wasn’t just as real (many of the cast and crew wanted it as well). So, difference of opinions aside, can’t two ships of the same family coexist without trying to bring the other down?


TWD is just a show and a comic book series (gasp, I know, very shocking). When - if it comes to an end, we will remember the characters fondly and the story lines with smiles, chuckles, and sadness. I am completely invested in this show, as I am any show I watch, as it’s easy to not only empathise with the character but to relate to them as well. But when the show comes to an end and if the comic books ever stop, I will remember the years of TWD with fondness. I don’t want to have to say that I hated it because someone couldn’t respect another person’s opinion. I don’t want to think about arguments and tears over characters we have all been invested in since 2010. (The comics since 2003.) This show is amazing and it’s simply wrong to bring it down with pettiness.



Hanazuki is the show I was storyboarding for most of 2016 with my Titmouse crew! It’s about this weird new moonflower girl who has like, a lot of emotions and she makes trees with them and also there are gumdrop rabbits called hemkas. I mean, basically.

Hasbro is releasing 9 episodes at a time on Youtube, and each group premieres during a different full moon. Neato! What’s that? The first group is out already? Maybe go watch it now! Do it!


Is such an important show. Its about two badass girls who beat up rapists okay?? One is confirmed bisexual and shes got blue hair, smokes weed what else u need? But on a more serious note its a chance for survivors of sexual assault to finally be heard which is especially important in the coming 4 years more than ever. Rape has always been a topic generalized and never taken seriously enough and this show finally destroys all that ignorance and in place is a story. A story about a girl who was raped and how if affected her life and all the truths that come along with it. Its such an important show and everyone should be watching it. please support the show its on every tuesday MTV

can you imagine being phichit…. you live for six years with this nerd who clearly has the biggest fucking crush on living legend viktor nikiforov and keeps posters of his face plastered on every square inch of his bedroom wall that you share and you watch videos of said godlike skating adonis with him every day after practice, and then a year later your nerd roommate shows up at this figure skating championship with posterman as his coach after you’ve seen them kiss on live television right in front of you and they’re wearing gold fucking wedding rings on their fingers and your mind just has this whispered moment of “what hte fukc”

If you’re a fan of Moulin Rouge or Great Gatsby, watch The Get Down because it was created by Baz Luhrmann, who also co-wrote and directed both films. 

If you like musicals, watch The Get Down. 

If you like 70′s aesthetics, New York City, hip hop, or disco, watch The Get Down. 

If you claim to want or support actual representation for people of color, watch The Get Down, which has a majority black and latinx cast and has, like, two white people who only show up a couple times. 

If you want LGBT representation, watch The Get Down. If you want to know a little bit about the history of black and latinx drag culture, ballroom culture, and LGBT culture, watch The Get Down. If you want to see interracial relationships, watch The Get Down. 

If you want to see well written, nuanced women who are complex and who actually make mistakes, watch The Get Down. 

If you want a glimpse into the way working-class people struggle with white capitalism, how poverty subjugates people of color, and the struggles young people of color from these communities face, watch The Get Down. 

Watch The Get Down. It hasn’t received a tenth of the amount of attention it deserves, and we know that it’s because it has a majority black and latinx cast. Tumblr can’t handle such things, but seriously I encourage you to watch it. 

I’ve started thinking about male characters. Sort of.

I’ve been thinking about how some characters—ones who are almost archetypes—get distorted once they reach the pop culture canon. Right now the ones I’m thinking of are Sherlock Holmes and Captain Kirk.

Sherlock started as a guy with an incredible mind who didn’t know how to person very well but still cared very deeply about the disadvantaged and unprotected elements of society. He’s become a selfish manchild. There are variations of him—RDJ’s thrill seeker, House’s misanthrope, BC’s self-described sociopath—but it has no basis in the original. So why did we decide this was better? Why did we decide that a genius is above the rules of polite social interaction? What purpose does it serve?

Something similar has happened with Jim Kirk. I mean, watch the original show if you disagree. He’s intensely loyal, a creative thinker, a bright guy. He literally picks flowers on more than one planet. He’s read Milton. There’s basically no quicker way to anger him than to treat one of the women in his crew as second-class. He’s willing to show mercy to an opponent he’s defeated. But what’s his reputation in pop culture? A womanizer—which is just a different kind of selfish manchild.

I’m not saying that good stories can’t be told with these archetypes. I’m just saying that they don’t really resemble the original. Copy after copy gets less and less nuanced, till the original is completely foreign to these new versions even when they bear the same name.

And they’ve become so prevalent that there’s nothing interesting left in them.

The Sherlock Conspiracy Theorists on this website are literally having the most fun anyone has ever had watching a television show. We are decoding puzzles on multiple media platforms by cross-referencing plot lines from stories written throughout the last 130 years all while building knowledge of literature, math, music, coding, history, geography, chemistry, and television production. We are playing The Great Game in real time. I only wish more people could’ve joined us here because we won’t find another game this intricate in our lifetime, and everyone who finds this later will always be a few steps behind.

I hope everyone realizes this Conspiracy community is not about us being right – it’s about us pushing the boundaries of our intellect and having fun in the process. It’s been an honor playing The Great Game with all of you.

Sense8 is my life

I thought this show would be another one of those shows that sound good, and start off good, but make me stop watching halfway through.  I was so wrong.  Yesterday I started watching this show, and there’s no words to describe how amazing it is.  You absolutely HAVE to watch it.  And here’s some reasons why:


Originally posted by onehundredsun


Originally posted by ohh-neguinha


Originally posted by stripperanakin


Originally posted by jessespikmans

Originally posted by debnamcarevs

Originally posted by shimssi


Originally posted by mufalo

Originally posted by wrxesy

Originally posted by akamatthewmurdock

Originally posted by theflavourofyourlips


Originally posted by welcometoyouredoom

Originally posted by genderbinaryisforlosers


Originally posted by netflixsense8gifs

Originally posted by derekihale


Originally posted by bellamyhalpert

Originally posted by tarjeisandviks

Originally posted by gifthetv

“But then you sent me a vision of a man with a large…. *Struggles to find a word* junk

Originally posted by gifsense8


Originally posted by downeyjrs

Originally posted by netflixsense8gifs

Originally posted by lizzie-mcguire

Originally posted by gifsense8

Originally posted by scaredofuhlek


Originally posted by agent-69

Originally posted by caryled

Originally posted by seriestvquotes

Originally posted by hermiunes

Originally posted by wllsgorski





I would go on an on, but this post is getting quite long.  So i’m just gonna say.  Watch this.  You will not regret it



I’m gonna preface this by saying that this is not first-hand information.  I am not a reporter.  However, another user on this site is friends with a reporter who was at the bfi screening in London and got pulled into a press huddle with TPTB and told me about this.  

This user told me:

“The reporter who attended the showing supposedly was told that they could not write a review because there were “different versions.”  Basically, making everyone – even the press – wait until after the actual televised episode because anything that comes out before that won’t be the truth.”

Full disclosure, this is friend of a friend information, but the reporter isn’t even a Sherlock fan and is pissed she has to watch the episode twice.  


‘I Love You’: a man’s perspective

I haven’t made the rounds yet this morning, but already last night I’ve seen multiple posts that seem to want to either downgrade or erase the meaning behind Sherlock’s words to Molly Hooper. I find it insanely amusing, because had those words been to John Watson, people would be wetting themselves, but because it was for Molly, people are climbing all over themselves to again deny this character her actual fair due.

My husband, who watches Sherlock with me, had some very interesting perspectives on The Final Problem. He tends to read the show textually, without shipping or all the other nonsense we as fandom people get into.  I tend to trust what he says only because he has no ulterior motives, like zero. Even my own ship doesn’t really mean a damn thing to him. He knows I love it, but he’s not swayed by my reading or my desires at all.  

His reading of The Final Problem was that this was Eurus effectively unlocking the original Sherlock Holmes.  This was Sherlock’s sister, bringing him home, just as he was bringing her home.  To do that, she had to undo what she did when she took Victor Trevor away from him at that young age.  She took a little boy who was filled with bright, wonderful, hot emotion, and she made him lock that away.  She made him like her, and to my husband, it seemed like that was never what Eurus wanted.  

The scenes inside Sherrinford were about systematically making Sherlock face each single, major emotion that he’s refused to feel all these years: anger, fear, sadness, and above all…love.  And no, I don’t mean love for your best friend, that’s already been addressed, and that was already the easiest thing for Sherlock to unlock in himself. He basically did that in S1.  Sherlock loves John, his best friend, just like he loved Victor.  The parallels are spelled out for you in the clearest of ways.  

Sherlock’s locking away of his ‘sexuality’ was already broken open in S2 with Belgravia.  Irene Adler represented a part of Sherlock that really, really wanted out.  It was confusing as hell for him, as we saw, but he still managed to deal with it.  Sex is sex is sex.  It’s meaningful, and at the same time, can also be meaningless.  I personally never saw Irene as meaningless, far from it.  But I do think her special place in Sherlock’s “unlocking” was more physical than emotional.  Hence, we were reminded of this by the moan of her text tone. I personally think Sherlock’s sexuality is firmly unlocked at this point, no need to revisit it again and again.  Something that remained hidden though, very deep down, was Sherlock’s ability, willingness and understanding of a deeper love, and what that means.  This is where Eurus comes in.

The scene with the coffin was very carefully done, both by the writers and on the part of Eurus’ planning.  In fact, if you listen carefully to Eurus’ words, she states exactly why she did it: you lost, look what you did to her, look what you did to yourself, all those complicated, complex emotions, emotional context.  All of those things are things people feel when they love someone (romantic love, since I’m sure I need to spell it out for some viewers).  You feel elated, but you also feel scared.  You may also hate yourself because you probably feel the person you love deserves BETTER than you.  Should you act on it or let them go find someone better.  Do you have the strength to give up parts of yourself for them?  Do they have the strength to give up parts of themselves for you?  It’s scary as hell, y’all!!

 My hub says, to him, the first time Sherlock says ‘I love you’ to Molly Hooper, he didn’t mean it…or at least Sherlock thinks he didn’t mean it. Then, the second time, he did mean it, and he knows it.  That is why he smashed the coffin…that was perhaps the biggest emotion he’d locked away, and he was consumed and confused by it.  For a man who has spent decades pushing love away, it came roaring in within 3 minutes, and he couldn’t push it away. Eurus wouldn’t let him push it away, and more importantly, Molly Hooper wouldn’t let him push it away. That’s why she turned the tables on him and made him say it first.  She inadvertently helped Eurus, which I’m sure was her plan all along (if you believe she’s as much of a supernatural badass as she’s shown to be).

My husband’s purely textual reading of Sherlock’s smashing the coffin with ‘I love you’ on it is that he DID mean it, but he wasn’t sure what that meant to him, and it scares him, greatly.  He said that looked like a man who was pissed that he LOVES.  He spent his entire life working at not loving, and here he is, loving this woman, but now he isn’t sure what to do about it, because he’s not even sure what that really means.  He doesn’t understand it…yet.  Love like that is incredibly strong, true love I mean, not “Hey let’s bone” love.  He said that wasn’t the actions of a man who doesn’t really care.  He said, as a man, if I had to get a woman to say that and I didn’t really love her, I wouldn’t care as much.  I surely wouldn’t care enough to smash an entire coffin to bits with my bear hands.

Lastly, my husband said something I thought was incredibly interesting about how he reads Sherlock.  He said he thinks the reason Sherlock hasn’t really pursued any other relationships with women, not seriously that is, is that on some level he really knew he loved Molly, but that he felt HE wasn’t good enough for HER.  He thinks Sherlock, for all of his arrogance, actually doesn’t think he’s a good man.  He knows Molly Hooper deserves a good man, someone to love her exactly how he thinks she should be loved, and he’s terrified he ISNT that man, or he CANT be that man.  His rage at smashing that coffin was basically anger at himself, anger at himself for loving this woman who really deserves more.

So, from a man who views this show with as much pure text as possible, he thinks that “I Love You” was real, but he thinks Sherlock simply doesn’t know what to do with it, doesn’t know what it means.  He said love is the scariest thing, especially to someone who’s lived closed off.  He’s had an upbringing that, without going into details, was a bit devoid of emotional support from people he needed it from. That means that learning how to show love was incredibly, incredibly difficult for him.  Trust me, I’ve been here for the entire thing.  It took years for him to learn how to show it.  It took me years too…in fact I still have massive trouble with it. People who’ve lived not understanding how to love since young childhood…it takes us a very long time to learn how to do it.  

My husband and I are not the kind of people who go on romantic ballroom dancing dates and snuggle on the Tunnel of Love ride.  We’re just not those kind of people…but we do love each other very much.  We have our way of showing it that works for us. There’s no one else I’d rather trust my mind, body and soul to.  That was first built on friendship, then trust, then love.  For us, I think that’s kind of where Sherlock is starting to head.  We may not ever see that adventure, as that’s not what Sherlock’s story was about.  But, finding how to love, that was his story, and Molly Hooper is an irreplaceable part of that.  No one can deny that, not ever.