[ SECRET POST #1839 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #1839 ⌋


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


01.



__________________________________________________

02.


__________________________________________________

03.


__________________________________________________

04.


__________________________________________________

05.


__________________________________________________

06. [repeat]


__________________________________________________

07.


__________________________________________________

08.


__________________________________________________

09.


__________________________________________________

10.


__________________________________________________

11.


__________________________________________________

12.


__________________________________________________

13.


__________________________________________________

14.


__________________________________________________

15.


__________________________________________________

16.


__________________________________________________

17.


__________________________________________________

18.


__________________________________________________

19.


__________________________________________________

20.


__________________________________________________

21.


__________________________________________________

22.



Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 07 pages, 156 secrets from Secret Submission Post #263.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 1 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeats ]
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

...I liked Moffat's Adler roughly 900x better than Ritchie's Adler.

But then, I don't really like any portrayals of Adler outside of the ACD books. I think she's become a fanon sue and I'm sick to death of her.

[(Anonymous)]

Seriously?! You prefer Moffat's "lesbian" who is sexually attracted to a man who waves his ~total dominance~ and ~manly lack of emotion~ in her emotional weak lady-face and rubs it in by saving her super-hero style with a big fat phallic knife over lovely Rachel who is still very much her own woman and isn't totally overwhelmed by her sexuality and doesn't let it compromise her?

Ok then.

[(Anonymous)]

Because sexuality is fluid and not binary, if John is straight and has romantic feelings for Sherlock that are not sexual why can't Irene have sexual feelings for Sherlock that aren't romantic and express a desire to fuck him because he's brilliant

Because Irene was not sexually attracted to Sherlock acc. to the ACD canon, much less flirting with him every time they had a scene together, I like RDJ's interaction with every other person in the movie but all the eyefucking with their mouths hanging open like they were about to start licking each other's faces was just awkward

Because I like the Magnificent Bastards theory that the whole Sherlock & Irene thing was comeuppance for Mycroft and Moriarty who just thought they knew everything that was going on and really the two of them played big brother and the criminal mastermind like, well, fiddles by taking their mental attraction and making it look like she was falling for him to get her off and help her escape and also in large measure for the lulz

The idea that emotions make you weak is a fallacy that is constantly disproven in the context of the show by the existence of John Watson, and the symbolism of Rachel's Irene being trussed up and hung in a slaughterhouse full of meat with a gag in her mouth was lost on you, you require a phallic sword to set off your alarms

Whatever, anon. BBC!Irene didn't spend her final scenes knocked out by a single madman, she required a whole terrorist cell to take her down, so yeah, she wins

[(Anonymous)]

We can discount theories, for starters. Moffat isn't clever enough, nor would he portray a partnership like that.

I disagree that the emotions = weak fallacy was disproven. How? It's hardly clear that Sherlock has particularly strong feelings for John in the first place. Sherlock was clearly portrayed as having 'won' his battle with Irene because of his ~masterful control~ of his feelings; I think the fact it was written so poorly is evident by the fact you have to make up a theory to explain it.
When there is so little portrayal of strong, clever women, not to mention strong, clever lesbian women it's a little trite to haul out the 'fluid sexuality' explanation when Moffat has such a shitty history writing female sexuality. Those camera angles were not made via the female gaze. It was the old 'a man clever enough to turn even a lesbian' trope.

I didn't like the slaughterhouse scene at all, but no, it didn't render particularly sexual for me. Sure, it was your traditional damsel in distress saved by the big strong men but it didn't ring as awfully for me because 1.) it's Hollywood, and I don't expect a thing whereas a BBC TV show has more scope to explore complex themes 2.) Irene didn't trade on her sexuality. BBC Irene pranced around with her mouth just as poutily parted; worse, we had to listen to her breathy orgasm tone every five minutes just to remind us she was a sex object.