[ SECRET POST #2325 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2325 ⌋

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

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.


__________________________________________________



13.


__________________________________________________



14. [repeat]


__________________________________________________



15.


__________________________________________________



16.


__________________________________________________




















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 037 secrets from Secret Submission Post #332.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 1 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

Re: Irene Adler

[inkmage]

That's about what my view of it was, having been into both at around the same time. The movies were, in someone else's words, basically a big budget Sherlock Holmes slash fic with all the really good parts taken out. Plus it's set in Ye Olde Victoriane Times(e?), so it gets at least a little bit of a pass as far as independent women characters go. (It really shouldn't, but whatever.)

Sherlock, on the other hand, made this great big noise about how it was exactly like the stories! only updated! and modern! and clever! and so on, so people expected a little more of in terms of faithfulness and gender equality and so on. Instead we got Moffat's brand of clever, Irene as her skeevy "I'm straight for you, Sherlock! That means I must be saved by you!" self, and lots of "no homo!" gags.

Also, people like to hate on Moffat for his portrayals of women. As far as I can casually tell, Guy Ritchie doesn't have nearly the same problems.

Re: Irene Adler

[(Anonymous)]

re: people's critiques of women in Moffat vs Ritchie - I think that's, again, more a function of people paying more attention to Moffat and caring more about the things he does than the other - because one of those people makes big splashy Hollywood blockbusters and the other one writes nerdy nerd nerd stuff - so people have a pre-existing relationship with Moffat's work, they pay more attention, they just generally care more. The only previous relationship that people have with Guy Ritchie is knowing that he's the guy who used to be married to Madonna. Just fandom dynamics, you know?

Re: Irene Adler

[inkmage]

Yep, definitely. People see what he's done in/with Doctor Who and whatever else he's worked on, and they have a preconceived notion of what his stuff is like, and whether they want to like it. Cognitive bias and all that jazz.

Re: Irene Adler

[(Anonymous)]

I find it hard not to pay attention to Moffat's suckage when he only writes the same character types for every different show. River Song and Irene Adler? Same "strong and sexy" lady.
His 11th Doctor, 9's way of speaking, and Sherlock? His clever lead and mouthpiece. It's why a lot of viewers find 11's sexist remarks about women in Let's Kill Hitler jarring compared to previous Doctors who at least made blanket statements about humanity and other species.

Re: Irene Adler

[(Anonymous)]

Oh, I'm not defending Moffat at all. It's more that... it's possible that Ritchie has done stuff that's as bad or worse. Fandom just doesn't pay attention. One of the reasons people don't get angry about female characters in the Ritchie Sherlock Holmes movie is because they haven't paid attention to Guy Ritchie that much and don't have any knowledge one way or the other, whereas with Moffat they have and so they notice this shit. When maybe Ritchie has a ton of sexist shit in his previous movies and stuff and we just don't know. I'm not saying that Moffat's great or anything; I mostly think he sucks. I just think we notice it way more than we notice Guy Ritchie one way or the other.

Re: Irene Adler

[(Anonymous)]

If you'd never seen a Guy Ritchie movie before Sherlock Holmes, I feel bad for you.