[ SECRET POST #5758 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #5758 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.


01.



__________________________________________________



02.



__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________



04.



__________________________________________________



05.



__________________________________________________



06.



__________________________________________________



07.



__________________________________________________



08.



__________________________________________________



09.













Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 34 secrets from Secret Submission Post #824.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[fscom]

02. https://i.imgur.com/kMA238H.png

[(Anonymous)]

Yes, agreed.

[greghousesgf]

yes yes yes

[(Anonymous)]

I agree but I think most people have come around on Moffatt fucking that one up

I think there's more people who want to do an Office Space printer scene on the script for that episode than there are people who defend it

[kallanda_lee]

I liked Sherlock at first, but the more it progressed, the more I felt it was the writers goins "haha, look at me, I'm so clever" - and it wasn't really, it was a lot of style over substance.

[(Anonymous)]

I actually loved the BBC's version of Irene Adler--but I hated what they then did with her. Like I loved her character (razor sharp, ruthless, and pragmatically sexual). Yes, it deviated substantially from ACD canon, but I thought her character worked really well within the BBC adaptation with its younger, ruder, and more messed up Sherlock.

But then they utterly ruined it by giving her feelings for Sherlock, having her lose to Sherlock, and having Sherlock save her. Fucking horrible narrative decisions all around, IMO--and yes, very sexist.

[philstar22]

Never watched, but that sounds stupid. Isn't the whole point of the character in the original that she outplayed Sherlock and he acknowledges that fact and that he underestimated her because she was a woman?

[(Anonymous)]

nayrt - Yep. For some reason, many adaptations don't seem to like that.

[(Anonymous)]

I didn't like the basic concept to start with but, yes, the twist is the part that's basically unforgivable

[sabotabby]

Agreed. I kind of get the impression that they didn't know how to write women, maybe?

[(Anonymous)]

I don't know about Gatiss, but Moffat is rather bad at it, IMO. Or maybe I'm just tired of his sexy heroine hot takes from Doctor Who.

[(Anonymous)]

feel this in my SOUL

[(Anonymous)]

So many adaptations that try to do something new with Holmes end up doing a disservice to the character of Irene Adler (and often in broadly the same way, for all that they're pretending to be ~original~) but BBC Sherlock is the worst offender I can think of.

[(Anonymous)]

What did you think of the way Elementary treated the character?

[(Anonymous)]

Mark Gatiss gave a talk to the Sherlock Holmes Society in 2006, Sherlock aired in 2010.

I think he's genuine in his like of the canon.

I liked BBC Irene. She wasn't particularly exciting in the short story, she beat Holmes because he completely underestimated her not because she was smarter but because he didn't rate women.

I liked the dominatrix thing, a royal having an affair with an opera singer wouldn't even be gossipy worthy but an affair with a dominatrix would make the tabloid front page.

[(Anonymous)]

I...actually agree with you about most of this. I think Gatiss is a hack of the first order, but I do believe that he's a genuine Sherlock Holmes fanboy. I think the combination of his fanboy cred, when combined with him being rather up his own arse as a creator, created a very specific circumstance in which he arrogantly came to feel that he was eminently qualified to give the canon a facelift.

ACD Irene was a great character as a one-off in a short story, but if they'd held true to her character in the adaptation I don't think it would have worked with the narrative overall. The tweaks to per personality and demeanor totally worked for me. I loved the way she invited comparisons with Sherlock, while also contrasting him quite distinctly. Both of them were brilliant and antisocial, but his alleged sociopathy was ultimately more of an aspiration than a reality. His aloofness and harsh indifference was, at its root, a front for the fact that he was 221 neurosis in a trench coat. Hers, meanwhile, was genuine. She was more effective than he was, but from a few steps over the moral event horizon.

Still hate that she caught feelings and lost to him, though. I feel like they made her so vicious that they couldn't bear to have her best him. Whereas to me, her being so ruthless would've made her besting him hit so much harder and it would've been so interesting.

[(Anonymous)]

Sorry, late to the party but I have to say, Ritchie's Adler at least never got defeated by Holmes, in fact left Holmes naked, cuffed, with only a pillow to cover him lol. She ultimately saved the day in the first film and it's only bec Lord Blackwood surprised her that she got caught at all. I loved her so much and I insist that she faked out Moriarty and she lives to make mischief in Tibet or Norway or something and will resurface in the third film. <3