[ SECRET POST #2563 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2563 ⌋

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

01.


__________________________________________________



02.
[ao no exorcist]


__________________________________________________



03.
[Leverage]


__________________________________________________



04.
[Doctor Who, Sherlock]

__________________________________________________



05.
[Star Trek: The Next Generation]


__________________________________________________



06.
[Frozen]


__________________________________________________



07. http://i.imgur.com/NKDHxDP.png?1?4348
[Big Bang Theory; warning for suicide/depression]


__________________________________________________



08.
[Amy Poehler]


__________________________________________________



09.
[Deep Space Nine/Babylon 5]















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 035 secrets from Secret Submission Post #366.
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]

04. http://i.imgur.com/mpUOMLg.png?2?5841
[Doctor Who, Sherlock]

[(Anonymous)]

Welcome to Moffat land, where he gets to vicariously live through all his male characters and sex up his idea of the perfect woman - who is always a variation the same theme.

[(Anonymous)]

Excellent summation!

[(Anonymous)]

So, question! Did he Heinleinize his wife, or is he in a very unhappy marriage?

[tabaqui]

Are we talking about Moffet or Joss, here?

[fauxkaren]

Moffat seems to have a couple of character types that he likes and then he just tweaks them a little bit so they're not obvious carbon copies.

He's not great at creating nuanced and well developed characters.

[(Anonymous)]

Or plot. Or background. Or foreground. Or story.

Really, he's just not great at writing. Why do people focus on the minor details, when the major problem is right there, in black and white print?

[(Anonymous)]

Maybe it's because I've seen less DW, but I thought Sherlock's version of Irene Adler was just so embarrassing to watch. Talk about undermining a great character...

[(Anonymous)]

It was just so bad, and was the definitive point when I decided this show wasn't for me. And I'd thought The Blind Banker was annoying before that.

[(Anonymous)]

+1 and the whole "twist at the end" was just so contrived and absolutely in opposition to even the spirit of Canon...don't get me started.

[(Anonymous)]

Maybe I am missing the point, but I thought the whole Irene loving Sherlock was demonstrating how who you want to fuck does not equal who you love romantically. Hence why straight John is also romantically in love with Sherlock.

[(Anonymous)]

I can see the usefulness in getting that point across. But I don't think it's worth making if you have to sacrifice one of the only major female roles in Sherlock Holmes canon to make her into a vampy Sherlock-stalker.

And let me emphasize: that point could've been made without hamstringing Adler's character, but surprise! Moffat chose not to do that.

[iceyred]

Great idea, bad execution.

It could have been an example of 'if it's you then ok.' but I was too distracted by the blatant fanservice and shoddy 'deductions' to notice.

[(Anonymous)]

Hence why straight John is also romantically in love with Sherlock.

...except he's really, really, not.

[glo_unit]

Hence why straight John is also romantically in love with Sherlock

Even if that is true, you think the show will actually say so?

[(Anonymous)]

Sure, absolutely, they're exactly the same, if you choose to disregard a bunch of other characteristics like their profession or in River's case personal history... Nothing like wilfully oversimplifying readings of female characters in the name of feminism!

[mechanosapience]

Given that the only relationship we've seen River in is with Eleven, you're mostly coming across as one of those "You're not bisexual unless you've fucked both sexes." I assume this was not the intention, but please correct me if I'm unfairly giving you the benefit of the doubt.

[(Anonymous)]

I dislike Irene in this version (love her in the original and the Wishbone version) and I fucking HATE River Song but I never really thought of them as the same character, but I see your point.

[(Anonymous)]

I told my sister's boyfriend this exact same thing and it blew his mind.

"OMG YOU'RE RIGHT! HOW DID I NOT NOTICE THAT!"

ILU

[(Anonymous)]

I love you, OP.

Thank you for putting into words why I find both these characters so nails-on-chalkboard annoying.

I LOVE YOU, says inappropriate anon again!

04 transcript

[(Anonymous)]

[sherlock/doctor who - pictures of irene adler and river song with descriptions next to them]

I first started watching Sherlock. I wasn't very satisfied with how she was written, but I thought the episode itself was decent.

Then I finally got along to watching some episodes of Doctor Who with River Song in them

[description text next to irene adler picture:]
-'gay' but spends entire episode pining/being obsessed with a man
-Super-eroticized dominatrix character
-She's his rival, but he still is better than her
-Love interest
-"HEY GUYS, DID YOU FORGET SHE HAS BOOBS? HERE THEY ARE AGAIN"

[description text next to river song pic:]
-"She's bisexual" says Moffat, even though there is no actual proof of it in the show
-"Look at her with her double entendres and sexual quips!"
-Love interest
-"HEY GUYS, DID YOU FORGET SHE HAS BOOBS? HERE THEY ARE AGAIN"

They are the same fucking character and I can't believe people are still letting Moffat write this bullshit

[(Anonymous)]

He seems to be a terrible person and a lousy dresser.

[(Anonymous)]

Lol no kudos for a generic non-secret designed to stir up more Moffat hate though.

[(Anonymous)]

IDK what it makes me but Irene was the character I have most identified with in Sherlock.

Not for the "if it's you okay" or the dominatrix profession, but the idea of trading secrets for power and creating that WHOLE masterplan when she is probably of average intelligence (like, you know; MOST OF US) appeared very inspirating to me.

And at the end of the day that's what I saw in Irene; she was like the ordinary person (at least intelligence-wise) that did something so freaking extraordinary and almost brought a kingdom to its knees playing her cards.

Like, it made me feel that even I, just with more confidence and a whip, could do the same. One could never be Sherlock, and between being Watson or Irene, I would so prefer to be Irene.

[(Anonymous)]

I'd be less bothered if I didn't see so many people on Tumblr who criticize Moffat's writing, dislike Irene, but think River is perfect.